Blue Screen? Arrgh I am tired of this!!!

[Mal007colm]

I upgraded my old Cyrix II 300, 96 mb from 98 to Win2k to escape the Blue screen problem. Have yet to blue screen in 3 months although a friend told me it's coming. My other system that is used mainly for all my apps (Amd Duron 700, Asus A7V mobo, 128 mb Kingston PC-100) was on 98 (not SE) and I decided to install WinME. Well the system locks and blue screens often. For some reason it seems to happen only when I am online. A friend told me that blue screen is whats known as a hexagonal memory dump (is that true?) Anyway what operating system is the best to prevent this problem. I have a copy of Whistler Beta 1, should I try that only asking cause I want stablity but to be able to use all apps.

 

[jtshaw]

If you don't want BSOD you can always install linux But you might not want to take such a drastic step, so I would say go with Windows2k.

 

[ghetto buck]

In my experience windows Me sucks. In my Very short time using it I got constant blue screens, usually entering outlook express. If your using your duron system mainly for apps theres no reason not to use windows 2000 unless your using old dos apps. Also it sounds like your friend is jerking your chain.

 

[Mal007colm]

So my best bet is do to a clean install of Win2k?

 

[SemperFi]

A clean install is better. I have upgraded once and prefer the clean install.

Incidently I started dual booting 98SE and 2000 for several months. When using 98 and try to dial up could not negociate connection. I booted to 2000 and connected first try. I hardly use 98 now.

I want to add linux soon.

 

[paulip88]

There is no real way to avoid the blue screen problem. Linux does a good job handling stuff like that, since it doesn't make the entire comp die on you. (technically, it doesn't use a blue screen either).

However, your best bet on a Windows platform would be either Win2K or WinNT. Both offer better memory protection (NT kernel) which make them a lot harder to bring down.

 

[UnixFreak]

I vote for linux. Blue screens are bad for your health. They have been shown in tests, to incite anger in the user. tests also show blue screens are more predominant on windows systems. summary: windows is bad for your health.

 

[johnlog]

Installing Linux is for geeks and children who have nothing better to do with their free time.

What I did. I had Win98 SE installed on a Athlon KII 450 MHz system. I decided to go with PacBell's free offer for Basic DSL. It was at that time tech assisted only. So I had to let a tech (what a joke! All 6 of them were about 20 years old with two weeks training) come over and attempted to install a NIC. 30 hours later they could not install the NIC and in the mean time they screwed up my perfect running Win98 SE computer. I was tempted to reformat and reinstall everything.

Instead I took the NIC out of the now sick computer and installed it myself in another computer. Took me about ten minutes.

What I am getting at is that original computer never worked correctly again. Could not boot up normally. No longer worked with my scanner. A myriad of strange problems.

How I solved the problem. I installed WinME OVER the sick Win98 SE. To my surprise the ME installation cured every problem that computer had and now it boots up perfectly first time every day. My scanner once again is working perfectly.

What installing WinME did for me was to cure every problem I had with that computer. It has been running perfectly 24/7 for several months now. Bless WinME for automatically repairing a very sick computer!!

Those of you who are sick of reformatting and FDISKing your hard drives every week for no real reason pay attention to this note.

JohnL

 

[Elledan]

<<Installing Linux is for geeks and children who have nothing better to do with their free time.>>

Actually: nope.

People who install Linux are mostly fed up with Windows and want to experience a serious OS which doesn't crash when you open a small program like NotePad

There are of course geeks who install it (did anyone call my name?), but those are rare.

Linux is seen by many people as a cure against illnesses caused by Windows

 

[UnixFreak]

<< Installing Linux is for geeks and children who have nothing better to do with their free time. >>



are we in high school still? I guess for those with that mentality, anyone smart is a &quot;geek&quot; not &quot;cool&quot; like you. You are &quot;cool&quot;, right?
just checking. This coming from someone who probably tried to install linux, and was too stupid to figure it out, and frustrated went back to his pretty windows.

>>>GEEK AND PROUD!!!<<<<<
P.S. I may be a geek, but I like signing &quot;cool&quot; peoples
paychecks, and letting &quot;cool&quot; people pump my gas, and serve
fries to me and my family!!

 

[anthraxza]

hmmmm....

well i had the exact same problem
lotsa evil BLOD
eventually i friend of mine said try some different memory!
so i swapped it with and Whammo... it worked perfectly
so i had some bad ram which was fine when i bought it but it slowly go worse!.


............

 

[zuffy]

Everybody is talking about Linux, but what do you do with Linux once it's installed? Do you still have a Microsoft OS for internet access, emailing, ICQ, word processing, games, burn cd, watch dvd, etc. or Linux has an emulator to run native Windows applications? I know there are native Linux applications but isn't it limited though?

 

[johnlog]

Well, what I meant by geeks, not as the smart persons but those dummies who think anything is good except whatever Microsoft produces. Those same dummies who go around telling everyone who has a simple problem to FDISK and reformat their hard drives at the drop of a hat. Most are plain simpletons who have a minor problem and somehow think that by fdisking and reformatting that will solve all their computer problems. Not so.

As we can see by the many notes FDISKing and reformatting for most does not solve their problems at all.

If you want a computer to run 24/7 install Windows ME as I did and it does work.

If you have plenty of free time trying to look stupid then do your thing and install Linux. That is if you can figure out of the twenty or so variations of Linux you can find one you can live with for at least one week.

Then go on-line for help with the myriad of problems we see asked about on this forum. Dozens of persons probably with good intentions are giving bad advice daily on how to make Linux work minimally.

Then to do real work they want to dual boot with Windows. In their spare time they again can spend untold hours trying to figure out what is wrong and why their Linux install fails to run correctly. No decent real life programs to run on it.

JohnL

 

[Hawken]

LOL...

johnlog dearest, for real work I boot to Linux. If i want to play games, then I boot
to windows. That is why I have dualboot system. Linux for work and windows for fun.

If you have stable windows system (tho I doubt it) then I congratulate you. I have used
every windows variant since win95 (95/95,5/98/98SE/NT4/2000) and all have crashed sooner or
later.

You say no decent real life programs run in it? Then tell me why almost all very serious work
is done in *nix variants (unix, linux, bsd, etc.)? Company where I worked before was migrating
from NT to Linux because work that was done there was quite mission critical (ie. stability of
systems is very important). I wonder what you think are those &quot;real life programs&quot; that are
so important and can't be found for Linux. I have found every program I need to do my work in
Linux. If you bother to try, then you will find out that you can too. Of course if you mean
games as those &quot;real life programs&quot; then you are mostly right, but even games are being
potred to Linux.

I think you are just a troll or if you are not then you have been blind to real world.

I have always been promoting the idea that no single OS better than another, but when someone
is as blind as you, my cup unfortunately overflows.

Everyone has right to use OS they see is best for them, but don't came to tell me &quot;you can't
do this or that in Linux&quot; because you just will show your ignorance.

I apologize my ranting, but I coudn't keep my mouth shut anymore. And don't mind my spelling or
grammar errors because english is not my native language.

 

[UnixFreak]

<< Everybody is talking about Linux, but what do you do with Linux once it's installed? Do you still have a Microsoft OS for internet access, emailing, ICQ, word processing, games, burn cd, watch dvd, etc. or Linux has an emulator to run native Windows applications? I know there are native Linux applications but isn't it limited though? >>



Since You posed an intellegent question, I'll answer it. Since Johnlog thinks I am &quot;wasting my time looking stupid&quot; I dont want to take the time explaining something to a brick wall. I do have a Microsoft OS running on one of my machines, yes for the following reasons, I use Macromedia Flash4 for my business, as well as Paint shop pro. Also, I support my MS customers, so I need a machine with the same file system they use. For Internet access, I use the RHPPP dialer that comes with Red Hat 7, for Email, I use Netscape messenger, and netscape communicator for browsing. For ICQ, I use licq, another (unauthorized) ICQ utility for Linux, for word processing I use Wordperfect or one of the other fine Gnome Word processing utilities, that also came with Red hat 7. As far as burning cds, or watching DVDs, I do not have a burner, or a DVD player, so I do not use these utilities, so someone else may be able to answer these questions. as for emulators, yes they exist, I do not use them simply because I dont have the processing power, its much easier for me to just slap together a pentium 200 and throw win98/RH dual boot on it, an link it to my lan. Linux is limited in comparison to a winx platform as far as software availablity, there is no denying that, but Look at what most linux distros come with, stock, for free, and look what you would have to purchase from MS to get an equivalent system. As far as stability, speed, and power over your hardware, I wont even go there. Linux rules. I wouldnt say MS users are stupid, but I think a lot of them are being misled.

 

[owensdj]

Hawken, I think Linux is a good OS for many uses, but I have to disagree with much of what you said.

1. Contrary to your experiences, NT 4.0 and Win2K(but not Win9x and WinME) are very stable OSs. IMO, they are certainly as reliable or even more reliable than Linux for a graphical workstation due to the instability of XFree86.

2. Unix variants do NOT do almost all very serious work, unless you're still living in the 80's. Unix-like operating systems have a significant, but miniority, percentage of the server market.

3. There are many applications available for Windows that just don't have a good equivalent application available for Linux. Internet Explorer beats Netscape. Microsoft Office blows away Star Office. Visual C++ is far superior to GNU C++. Photoshop is better than GIMP. I could go on and on.

I agree with what johnlog said. Linux is probably a waste of time for most users. It's just too complex to install and especially maintain to make it work most user's time and effort. The problem is that many Linux developers and supporters have this attitude that Linux SHOULD be very complex and cryptic. I guess they want being able to install and run Linux to be some type of status symbol. See LinuxFreak's comments above as an example.

The truth is that Windows 2000 is a great operating system that's going to give you a workstation that's just as stable as Linux could, be far easier to install/maintain, and have more &amp; better application support.

 

[UnixFreak]

thats a bunch of BS. For one, its UNIXFREAKand for two, I dont use linux for a &quot;status symbol&quot; If I want to impress someone, I'll do it on a commodore. For two, I save so much time using linux, that this argument doesnt work for me. In my case, I have Installed RH ONE TIME FOR EACH MACHINE. thats it, once, no problem, I have installed win98 two or three times in the last 6 months, plus major file replacement, for a machine I hardly use. and this whole attitude about people grumbling because they have &quot;learn stuff&quot; to use linux, whats the harm in that? If you dont want to learn, you shouldnt be into computers, bottom line. And if linux is too complex for you, pick up a book, seek out some info, help yourself, no information is useless. If you dont want to have to &quot;learn&quot; than sit in your rut and be quiet.

 

[UnixFreak]

and another quick question for you win crusaders, how come hotmail.com (owned by Microsoft, no big secret) is currently, as we speak, looking for UNIX administrators?? What OS does Microsoft use to run thier own systems? nuff said.

 

[Hawken]

owensdj

1) At one point I used NT 4 exclusively at work and it crashed once each day. No bs.
And I have used 2000 a lot since it came out. It have crashed too. Linux crashes? One time
only, but it was during severe thunderstorm so I can't be sure what caused it.

2) So you are saying that only servers do serious work? I addmit that I should have been more
specific about that. Don't you consider research and that kind of work as serious? Or have
universities and recearch labs changed that much to worse that they use NT's instead of
*nix variants?

3) I didn't say that Linux programs were better than windows programs. I said that you can
find equivalent programs for Linux. Your examples do not prove me wrong. As IE being better
than Netscape, that is matter of opinion only. You forgot to include Opera And you also
forgot to mention that StarOffice, GNU C++ and Gimp are FREE. Even you must addmit that they
give you most bang for buck. I have even heard that Adobe is going to port Photoshop to Linux,
but that is only a rumour and can't be counted on.

Linux being a complex to install? Hello? Where have you been last six months? Have you ever
even tried to install Linux? Try to install Mandrake 7.2 and you will find out it is easier
and faster to install than any windows. 20 minutes to install Mandrake 7.2, 40 minutes to
install Windows98SE. Go figure.. Number of times you need to reboot before everything is
up and running; Mandrake 7.2: one time only, Windows98SE: lost the count, maybe five or more
(that includes all drivers you need).

All the else is said better by UnixFreak.

 

[Shukaido]

<< and another quick question for you win crusaders, how come hotmail.com (owned by Microsoft, no big secret) is currently, as we speak, looking for UNIX administrators?? What OS does Microsoft use to run thier own systems? nuff said. >>



Hotmail used unix (OpenBSD?) before MS bought them out. Microsoft has been having a difficult time switching to NT, although they've tried to make the switch twice now. If they've given up, that's news to me...

Besides, with all of the service outages, lost messages, lost accounts, and downtime Hotmail users have suffered lately, Unix proponents should look elsewhere for case studies...

#ifdef NAIVE


<< If you dont want to learn, you shouldnt be into computers, bottom line >>


#endif

Nonsense. There are millions of intelligent, well-educated people in the world who don't want to learn the intricacies of bash or perl or X11, and see computers as mere tools. For them, a UNIX system, unless it's managed by someone else, is a poor alternative to Windows or a Mac.

 

[owensdj]

UnixFreak, sorry about messing up your nickname. I usually get them correct here.

I think learning new things is good, but there are some times when what you're learning isn't really that valuable. For example, is it really worth it to spend time memorizing the phone numbers of everyone you know when you can just look them up in a rolodex or a list?

I think Linux is kind of like that. You might spend a lot of time learning how get all of your hardware devices working and apps installed only to get about the same system you would have had under Win2K. Maybe you save some money.

UnixFreak, keep in mind that Microsoft didn't create Hotmail. They bought it, and it was already running with Sun servers using Solaris. I don't know why Microsoft hasn't changed over to Win2K for Hotmail yet. Maybe the Sun machines that run Hotmail are more powerful than any machines on which Win2K runs right now? Maybe they just don't want to go through the hassles of changing over to all new systems? I do know that all of Microsoft does use their own Win2K. Microsoft's web site and ftp server are all run by Win2K, and they are a pretty high-traffic site.

 

[UnixFreak]

I just used it as a point that even MS uses Unix, even though they bash it wholeheartedly. And I have to disagree with you, I think all knowledge is valuable, and I dont even own a rolodex, simply because it is faster to memorize the number and just dial it. I would study the mating habits of butterflies if it interested me, and would not consider it a waste of time. But hey, you expressed your opinion in a mature, intelligent manner, so i gotta respect that. I just feel different thats all.

 

[johnlog]

I use MSN Hotmail for making free phone calls in the USA and Canada. If Hotmail is run on UNIX machines those machines certainly do go down now and then. I also can use Hotmail for sending/downloading e-mail.

I also have installed MSN Explorer 6x which is a truly neat program. I get a lot of my news on MSNE. It works great and when I close MSNE it releases all the memory it was using. Plus it can auto import all your IE Favorites or, heaven forbid, you have Nastyscape installed it can import your bookmarks.

Over all, even with all those illiterate linux users the Anandtech forums are a great place to go for information. But one must weed out those addicted to Linux as they think God descended upon the earth and presented them with Liny.

I appreciate all those responses to my notes and thank those for their kind remarks.

For those of us using PacBell DSL notice they use Cisco Unix servers and boy do those things go down a lot. Who was it claiming UNIX is so stable?

JohnL

 

[UnixFreak]

Most of pac bell's problems should be blamed on pac bell, not unix. There are plenty of ISPs running on a UNIX platform that run just fine, with more accounts than pac bell. You also have to figure in hardware, the quality of technicians, procedures, etc. I am sorry if you feel linux readers are illiterate, of course if we were, how could we use posts? Sounds like a desperate stab at people (you couldnt come up with anything better?)who are smarter than you. You tried linux, and couldn't figure it out, now you hate everyone who has, and bash them personally, rather than the OS. Its the green-eyed monster coming out. If you want some help learning linux, I would be glad to help, although I may have to draw you pictures, as I am, as you say &quot;illiterate&quot;

 

[UnixFreak]

Btw, Linux may not be a godsend, but you would feel pretty good about a system when you turn it on it works, every time, and you didnt have to worry about blue screens all the time, had full control of your hardware, and didnt pay way to much for software thats basically in the beta stage, its really neat. But you arent smart enough to enjoy it, so I guess you miss out. hee hee.