--- On Sun, 2/27/11, Andras Simon <szajmi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/11, Patrick Bartek <bartek047(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> TO: OP
>
> If you think it's specifically a Fedora problem (I
don't), I would install
Me neither. It's just that I still think it's possible that
it's not a
HW problem.
> (a real dual boot install--not a LiveCD) distro other
than Fedora that has
> the same versions of kernel, GNOME, etc. to see if the
problem persists.
> Then try one that has different kernel, etc.
Is there a reason why a real install is better in this
case? The disk
can be exercised with a live cd, too. Of course, one is
constrained to
the applications that are on the cd, but still... And
finding a distro
with the same components is probably impossible.
Installing the "test" distro in the same "environment" as the
purported problem distro is the better way to evaluate problems. I've discovered by
experience that live distros, Fedora's particularly, don't behave the same as if
you install them to the hard drive. For example, I had one Fedora LiveCD that was slow to
boot (5 or 6 minutes), erred on some of the hardware, got the video wrong, too--I
corrected it manually--etc., but when I installed it, it got everything correct. Go
figure. BTW, the iso file and CD burn of that LiveCD checksummed good.
I use LiveCDs only for fixing broken installs or initially testing hardware compatibility.
For installation, I prefer the "Install" version of a distro, if it has one,
rather than installing the Live version.
BTW, I'm running a 32 bit live cd now and it's been
chugging along
under heavyish load (load avg above 4) with no
problems. Doesn't mean
a thing, of course... But if it goes on like this, then
trying the 64
bit live cd or installing the 32 bit version of F14 will
probably make
sense.
Hope everything turns out well.
B