I'm kinda like beta-tester for Microsoft, I have been since XP and Vista in the past.
I just tried installing Windows 7 beta (the next windows) hearing that it would be a lot better (when it's done) than Vista. I beta-tested Windows Vista too, I had for almost a year before it came out. I was sending them back all the error reports, and some nice emails about how Vista is a memory hungry OS and Microsoft shouldn't have gone to this direction, just because they want to copy everything from Mac OS-X, but of course that's only an opinion and since the company has gone into this certain direction, there is really nothing would change, beside trying to optimize this serious mistake.

Anyway, Windows 7 beta wouldn't even install (LOL), I get an error halfway through the installation BSD-s (blue screen of death), I error checked the DVD I burnt it onto, nothing wrong with it, neither it's a corrupted download.
I get some weird report in the BSD, that might hardware is responsible for the error, which I dispute, since everything else installs on this PC, unless of course Windows 7 has some specific requirement I am not aware of

(I got a Quad Core Intel Q6600, with 2GB Dual Channel, 1 80GB and 1 320GB Maxtor HD, ATI HD4650/520MB graphics card, using the 80 primarly (WinXP) and using the 320GB for testing)

If they gonna keep this way, we gonna see a lot of people switching to a different OS like Linux or Mac, Microsoft really has to pull up his pants for the upcoming years.

I get betas of M$ software as part of my MSDN subscription. Beta means, not finished. Expect it to crash.

Sounds to me like you might have a dodgy stick of RAM.

Can cause all sorts of problems, and as you have > 1GB then the problems can occur sporadically.

Run a memory test (don't use the Windows one!).

What flavour of BSD do you use? I'm pretty certain FreeBSD and PcBSD provide memory testing utilities on the installation media. Whereas OpenBSD does not (I just checked).

Pretty much every Linux [live]CD contains a memory test, as your running BSD, I'm sure you'll have one around.

Make sure you use one that actually uses a Memtest kernel.

Ta,

Chris.

Im sorry Atlantis, sounds llike a beta problem to me. Are you Installing on a diff partition from your current OS or did you remove your old OS and do a complete clean install? Oh NM i see you are using a different HD for the install. Still you might try to disconnect your one HD with your current os and just do a clean install with the test HD only.

Just noticed you said in the BSD, not in BSD (implying you run a variant of BSD).

Sorry, I read your post too quickly.

Either way, download and burn an ISO of any flavour of Linux, choose memory test from GRUB and post the results.

Ta,

Chris.

Why can't they just stick with XP? Everyone pretty much loves it (I do anyway). If it ain't broke, why fix it?

BSD = I meant Blue Screen of Death.

My memory is fine, and it's 2GB

..and yes, i'm trying to install it to a separate partition, an entire hard drive dedicated to it.

The > symbol means greater than (with regards to computing). I was saying you had more than 1GB or RAM (which as you say, is 2GB).

How do you know your memory is fine? What program / system did you use to test it?

Whenever I read BSD, I assume people mean the OS. I guess I'm lucky to have to rarely use Windows, and when I do I just its in a VM, so if it crashes I just restore a snap shot.

Ta,

Chris.

Caves weren't broke, yet we live in houses.

We need (as a race) to progress, although I fear we are progressing in the wrong direction at the moment.

And Windows XP is very very broken!

lol this is the same way with new technology and all.

Like gaming systems, pc's and newer software etc.

They keep getting better, some times wrose but over all better in the long run.

There is a small little program out there that will tell you everyting you need to know about your mainboard, processor and memory and Bios, called CPUZ. It's free, small and can run from a flash drive.

or as I see it, there must be a return on investment. So far, I don't see it.

For the most part, Gates never seems to be satisfied with what has been created, and wants something the be better. other than XP and 98, Microsoft really has not preformed very well.
Vista, even with it's 'bugs' worked out to some degree, is still a poor OS. ALthough Ubuntu and Mac have gained some momentum, XP is still a very stable OS, and Gates shouldn't mess with it.
I think that he know that nothing is more fleeting than secrets, and he couldn't keep the secrets of unlocking his OSs, eventually hackers will figure them out.
In my opinion, this is just another way for MS to stay in a businuss that they used to monopolise
but no longer can (Although technically, MS is still the monopoly).
I will stick with XP like I did with 98 until another PROVEN OS comes out on the market.

I tried installing windows 7 twice both times about half way through i get an error something is missing i finally gave us . maybe i will try a gain in a few months if i can

After the complete failure that was Windows Vista, I'd be VERY leery of any new operating systems M$ would have the nerve to release. It seems that the coding has gotten more and more sloppy with each new iteration, and unless they get their act together and make a real effort to quash bugs, their market share will continue to plummet.

God, what an ugly sight is Windows 7... Beta doesn't have the themes, but it is funny how M$ has chosen the uglies one to be the default. It looks like a breed between an Apple and a Vista. Horrible gigantic icons, the start button... man.. this one might be a true chick-flick.

The reason M$ keep trying to make and sell something new, is because they need to make money by selling a new round of OS-es to everyone. They really are not trying to improve anything, just make it look new.

The way they make money is like a circle of friends... Operating system will demand certain hardware, new software, which will allow for makers of that to make another round without any improvement.

I really wish NIX guys would come off their asses and get rid of command line. It is time to drop the M$ and their friends.

Yeah. If the Linux crowd made a REAL GUI and not that parser-slash-gnome crap, they'd have M$ by the balls. All they'd have to do is make it easier to use (without all that compilation crap) and they'd be all set.

The geeks I know, hold command line as something holy. That might be true, for the most inclined. But you don't make something widely accepted by making it exclusive to the habits of few.

Tested Asianux recently, with an eye of deploying it on corporate machines (a well camouflaged desire to help the "kick the M$" process), and bam! Need command line to create an user!

The only thing that keeps people coming back to Windows over Linux and Mac, is that Gates understood that the average person would look at command lines, blink rapidly and have an anurism.
He made windows a simple click/double-click OS.
And you're right, unless you know command line like the back of your hand, it's worthless. I have read critics reports that call Linux "made by geeks, for geeks". I for one, do not have a very good knowledge of command line, just barely enough to squeak by.

REAL GUI!??! Gnome has a far superior GUI to Windows XP / Vista! By superior I mean: more consistent, more intuitive, easier to extend and easier to learn.

If your used to the M$ GUI then there will be a learning curve as you get out of the bad habits you have been taught by M$.

There is also KDE, XFCE, Fluxbox and Enlightenment. Choose what works best for you.

Get out of the bad habits you have learn by using M$ and then you have something not many M$ users are used to... Choice!

Also, there are many many many distros where you never ever have to compile anything (Ubuntu included). I know loads of people who happily use Linux and don't even know what compiling is.

Even so, with Automake compiling some software is much easier. Although it is normally a case of:
./configure
make
make install

Which doesn't look too hard to me (although I've been using *nix variations for years, and cut my teeth on *nix before I'd even seen Windows).


Ta,

Chris.

This is the part that I don not get: Since it is not very complicated, then how hard is it to make a stupid button that does type in command promt the following:


Or simply the OS itself knows to do that when a user wants to install something?

I do not know if I am making myself clear, but I wonder, if Linux is in fact as simple as Nuxoids say it is, then why aren't there buttons typing those same commands then?

My guess is it is not so simple. The OS is likely not capable of operating without extensive guidance from the command line, which likely includes many commands / parameters in unpredictable order. That is why there is still not a complete gui.

I did look at Ubuntu. Looks a lot like Mac to me. Goofy. Personally, if I wanted to be goofy, I'd just take Mac then... I expected an interface that is better than Windows (pre XP), not the one that is worse than Mac...

All in my opinion, of course.