Giving up on Linux...

[Michael Robinson]

I have the exact same motherboard and had to do exactly the same thing,
except I didn't know I could renable Enhanced, thanx!

Thanks,
Michael Robinson
(mrobinson at fuzzymuzzle.com)
(www.fuzzymuzzle.com)


-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-list-admin at redhat.com
[mailto:fedora-list-admin at redhat.com]On Behalf Of Dean Mumby
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 5:16 AM
To: fedora-list at redhat.com
Subject: Re: Giving up on Linux...


I have a intel d865perl mb with hyperthreading , sata , and all the same
features , i installed fedora , redhat 9, etc with legacy mode and then
simply switched to enhanced mode and i am running fine. did you check
wether your system had enabled dma

 hdparm -tT /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
 Timing buffer-cache reads:   3568 MB in  2.00 seconds = 1784.00 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  166 MB in  3.00 seconds =  55.33 MB/sec

not slow at all





xyzzy at hotpop.com wrote:

>... for the foreseeable future on my home system.
>
>My home system is an ASUS PVP800-VM motherboard which has hi-speed USB,
ACPI,
>Pentium IV with hyperthread, S-ATA, Intel Extreme 2 graphics (865G
chipset).
>
>I also have an antique Adaptec 2930 SCSI card for my LS-2000 scanner.
>
>Redhat 9 install disks won't even boot on this machine unless I disable the
>Enhanced IDE (<-- totally bogus!!) ...  Fedora Core 1 is about the same.
>
>I decided on FC1 because it uses a later kernel (2.4.22 ... 24?) which
seems
>to support hyperthread and S-ATA better.  When I finally got FC1 installed
(I
>had to disable Enhanced IDE, install, compile a custom kernel and then
>re-enable Enhanced IDE), it was horribly SLOOOOOOW... running a shell in X
>and pasting a long command line took forever to complete.
>
>I figured that this might be due to the graphics driver, so I updated the
>graphics driver from Intel and then X crashed with a segmentation fault in
>the closed source part of the driver when attempting to start the X server.
>Even changing back to the original driver in the XF86Config didn't fix the
>segfault.  Gotta reinstall?  Who needs this? What a nightmare.
>
>The issue here is that Windows XP runs "out-of-the-box" on this system
without
>problems and it is FAST, once it boots.
>
>I could try the 2.6 kernel (and I have a LOT of experience with computers),
>but what's the use?  The 2.6 kernel is not ready for prime-time, not by a
>long shot, and neither, it seems, is Linux in general.
>
>I have seen too many bugs and posts on these topics about
SMP/hyperthread/ACPI
>and other issues that cause the system to lock up after a time of running
or
>not run at all and no fixes seem to be in sight - maybe because these
>problems are intractable without inside information about ACPI and other
>things that Intel will give to Microsoft but not to Open Source developers.
>Maybe Redhat just doesn't care. Who knows?
>
>I pity the average user that tries to install and run Linux on their latest
>hardware.  If I, as an experienced software engineer, throw up my hands,
what
>would a relative newbie who just needs the system to work do?
>
>I have real problems seeing how Linux is going to make it to the desktop by
>2005 with these kinds of road-blocks.
>
>Sad.
>
>
>
>


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list at redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list