Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 103

Thread: The non-pae mini.iso testing thread

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire, U.S.A.
    Beans
    2,529
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Wink Re: The non-pae mini.iso testing thread

    I don't know how to take a sceenshot with this mini iso lubuntu, so the speedtest.net results were 85 ms ping, 1.45 mbs download, .46 mbps upload.

    I think that's the cheapest service from my internet provider.

    mini install zzzzzz.

    Jerry

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Beans
    10,838

    Re: The non-pae mini.iso testing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by cariboo907 View Post
    That's the only choice I had when I installed it last week.
    That's one of the reasons I've been checking the 'tasksel' changelog from the Ubuntu main server. At this point I really must say that the entire mini.iso installation process can be extremely problematic. In other words it kind of sucks

    I'm going to step away from testing the mini.iso until Beta 1 iso-testing is over. It's just too time consuming and it seems obvious that the devs don't even take it serious

    IMHO the devs should seriously reconsider this whole PAE by default, but non-pae supported debacle! I mean how many people have more than 3 or 4 GB of RAM that can't run the 64 bit version?

    I think sometimes the devs are totally out of touch with reality

    End-of-rant, sorry, like I said ............ time to walk away and calm down

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Beans
    10,838

    Re: The non-pae mini.iso testing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrylamos View Post
    I don't know how to take a sceenshot with this mini iso lubuntu, so the speedtest.net results were 85 ms ping, 1.45 mbs download, .46 mbps upload.

    I think that's the cheapest service from my internet provider.

    mini install zzzzzz.

    Jerry
    You'd have to be running the mini.iso/net-install in a VM to be able to take a screenshot

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire, U.S.A.
    Beans
    2,529
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Red face Re: The non-pae mini.iso testing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by kansasnoob View Post
    IMHO the devs should seriously reconsider this whole PAE by default, but non-pae supported debacle! I mean how many people have more than 3 or 4 GB of RAM that can't run the 64 bit version?

    I think sometimes the devs are totally out of touch with reality

    End-of-rant, sorry, like I said ............ time to walk away and calm down
    We started out in 1982 with an original 64 kb IBM pc and 5 1/4 floppy's. Over the years, yes, memory has increased and so has disk space.

    Over the life of Pangolin LTS 5 years or whatever, no way there's going to be a preponderance of ubuntu users that just absolutely have to address more than 3.2 GB of ram. My prediction anyway.

    One more telling example that Ubuntu management isn't listening. Ubuntu's not the only fish in the ocean, we'll see.

    I'm back to updating & testing whatever distro will run on my pc's esp. with good forums.

    Jerry

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Williams Lake
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: The non-pae mini.iso testing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrylamos View Post
    We started out in 1982 with an original 64 kb IBM pc and 5 1/4 floppy's. Over the years, yes, memory has increased and so has disk space.

    Over the life of Pangolin LTS 5 years or whatever, no way there's going to be a preponderance of ubuntu users that just absolutely have to address more than 3.2 GB of ram. My prediction anyway.

    One more telling example that Ubuntu management isn't listening. Ubuntu's not the only fish in the ocean, we'll see.

    I'm back to updating & testing whatever distro will run on my pc's esp. with good forums.

    Jerry

    I not sure where you live, but around here most new computer systems, especially those with Windows 7 pre-installed come standard with 4GiB of ram, and as most new users are coming from Windows, 4GiB ram will be the norm, for most computer enthusiasts, 4GiB may not be enough for what they want to do, so we will see more and more users with well over 4GiB of ram.

    As you say Ubuntu isn't the only distribution, and even if it doesn't support older non-pae capable cpu's, there will always be other distribution that do. I would venture to guess that older non-pae cpu's will have a hard a time running the latest release of Ubuntu as they would running the latest version of Windows.

    2017 seems to be a long ways away, but whose to say that the majority of non-pae cpu's will even be running by the time Precise eol's. Also keep in mind that even though Precise will be supported for 5 years, I haven't seen anything about dropping new LTS releases every 2 years, so it won't be possible at all to run the next Ubuntu release on non-pae cpu's.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NM
    Beans
    1,121
    Distro
    Lubuntu Development Release

    Re: The non-pae mini.iso testing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by kansasnoob View Post
    That's one of the reasons I've been checking the 'tasksel' changelog from the Ubuntu main server. At this point I really must say that the entire mini.iso installation process can be extremely problematic. In other words it kind of sucks

    I'm going to step away from testing the mini.iso until Beta 1 iso-testing is over. It's just too time consuming and it seems obvious that the devs don't even take it serious

    IMHO the devs should seriously reconsider this whole PAE by default, but non-pae supported debacle! I mean how many people have more than 3 or 4 GB of RAM that can't run the 64 bit version?

    I think sometimes the devs are totally out of touch with reality

    End-of-rant, sorry, like I said ............ time to walk away and calm down
    Me too on mini.iso installation kinda sucks..
    Me too on stepping away from mini.iso for Beta iso testing..
    Me too ...
    Me too..
    Me too..
    Me too.. rant over..

    Now considering the freeze went on while I was sleeping last night and they forgot to tell me.

    Will Lubuntu Desktop isos get to fix that black/Dark grey installation issue on the screens?

    Just trying to plan on how close to the laptop screen I need to get to actually read the instructions..
    Boot Info Script
    Ubuntu User number is # 32763
    Linux User number is # 527179

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Beans
    10,838

    Re: The non-pae mini.iso testing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by cariboo907 View Post
    I not sure where you live, but around here most new computer systems, especially those with Windows 7 pre-installed come standard with 4GiB of ram, and as most new users are coming from Windows, 4GiB ram will be the norm, for most computer enthusiasts, 4GiB may not be enough for what they want to do, so we will see more and more users with well over 4GiB of ram.

    As you say Ubuntu isn't the only distribution, and even if it doesn't support older non-pae capable cpu's, there will always be other distribution that do. I would venture to guess that older non-pae cpu's will have a hard a time running the latest release of Ubuntu as they would running the latest version of Windows.

    2017 seems to be a long ways away, but whose to say that the majority of non-pae cpu's will even be running by the time Precise eol's. Also keep in mind that even though Precise will be supported for 5 years, I haven't seen anything about dropping new LTS releases every 2 years, so it won't be possible at all to run the next Ubuntu release on non-pae cpu's.
    But how many of those same "new computer systems" won't support 64 bit

    I totally did not understand the whole pae thing in the beginning, that's why I started a thread asking about it, but I've studied enough now to understand the general reasoning behind the creation of a pae kernel.

    But making pae the default is IMHO a bad mistake based on misjudgment. Those with more than 4GB of RAM could have easily installed a non-pae system and then upgraded to pae, but we've now created a dilemma for a small but still significant number of Ubuntu devotee's who will find it difficult to do a fresh install of Ubuntu (or try the live DE)

    Since I put up that question at "Answers" I've had a few people contact me via PM, plus those who did so publicly there, or at the subsequent bug report, and some of them have multiple machines effected by this.

    It really is just like the live-installer devs deciding nobody really used the option "use largest continuous free space" ........ wrong, wrong, wrong! Or the nonsense about a cat being more likely to hit Ctrl+Alt+Bkspc than Alt+SysReq+K ............. just total BS

    Regardless we end users always have to clean up the mess!

    I'm just taking a day or two off to calm down. I get particularly angry when a bug is marked "fix released" but the "fix" results in total borkage.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Beans
    66

    Re: The non-pae mini.iso testing thread

    Quote Originally Posted by cariboo907 View Post
    This is a little off-topic, but the Debian netinstall iso is about 165MiB if I remember correctly, I don't have a copy available at the moment, but I wonder what is included on it, to make it so much larger.

    I pay for a 7.5Mbps internet connection here, I don't find that it takes that much more time to do a full installation using the mini.iso.



    The above results show way better speeds than I pay for.
    The Debian mini.iso is only 16MB. It also works with my wireless adapter which the Ubuntu one never has.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Beans
    10,838

    Re: The non-pae mini.iso testing thread

    BTW I'm not done testing this, I'm just busy

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Beans
    420
    Distro
    Lubuntu Development Release

    Re: The non-pae mini.iso testing thread

    Well I finally got the mini.iso to boot, but it turns out it doesn't include the b43 kernel module for some godforsaken reason so I can't get my internet up despite having the firmware.

    This whole non-pae mini.iso nonsense is such a mess. It's stuff like this that made me start using Arch. If Ubuntu is doing everything they can to make sure I don't use their OS then I sometimes wonder why I'm trying so hard to use it.

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •