What kind of graphics card?
eeweir at bellsouth.net
Wed Jun 4 16:41:35 BST 2008
On 6/1/2008 Brian Pitts wrote:
> How much memory do you have now and how much did you temporarily try?
> You said you are using your motherboards integrated graphics now,
> right? Do you know what driver it uses and how much of your system's
> RAM it borrows?
I have 512 Mb. Tried 2 Gb. I have very little information on the mother
board. I know the name -- Amptron 925 ATX. It's old -- my machine was
made in 2002. I don't have the manual. I don't know how to check
otherwise on the answers to the questions you ask. Talking with the shop
that made it yesterday I learned that I bought the cheapest system they
made. The motherboard was bottom of the line then.
That said, there have been further developments that may throw some
light on what's going on, or may just muddy the waters further.
Yesterday, on the first two attempts, my system failed to boot. The
bottom line of the message I got, which I wrote down, was, "No space
left on device." On the third try, it did boot. As previously,
everything is glacially slow.
Today the boot process stopped while underway. The the characters on the
screen was a statement to the effect that if I did a "control-d" boot
would resume. I did control-d and the system finished booting. I ran the
partition editor. It showed that almost all the partition on which the
os is installed was used up: 7.5 Gb total, 3.5 Mb available. I just ran
it a second time. Now it's showing 2.4 Gb available. In either case, why
would Xubuntu be taking up that much diskspace? I haven't installed
much/any extra software.
I have been trying to download the live CD for LinuxMint, but the system
won't allow it. Says there's not enough memory to save in /temp. [I
don't want to save. I want to write to a CD.]
Unrelated, but of concern to me, a second hard drive, which appears as
mounted in the fstab file, does not show up on the partition editor. And
I can't read it with my file manager.
It's beginning to appear that my hardware is all screwed up. I am at a
turning point. My intention was to see if I could get a decent
installation of Linux running on this ancient system. If I could. If I
could demonstrate to myself that I can get a system set up, that I don't
continually have to be tinkering with, I'd go out and by a new machine
and put Linux on it. Otherwise, I'd go out and get me an iMac.
I am torn. The open-source idea and community are extremely appealing.
I've convinced myself, through my own experience and what I've seen of
others' systems, that the Linux route is definitely appealing.But I'm
tired of fiddling. I don't want to have to be continually doing this.I
want to use the system, not continually be working on it, especially
since my experience and understanding are limited.
If I thought I'd have more success with a new machine -- even really
good ones are not that expensive anymore -- I'd go out and buy one
today. Given the problems I've had with Linux on this machine, I'm not
confident that that would be the case.
Forgive what I know must be coming across as an ignoramus' rant. Any
wisdom would be appreciated nevertheless.
> My preferences are Intel > ATI (now owned by AMD) > Nvidia.
> Compare ATI/AMD's open source strategy  to nvidia's .
>  http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=826 
I've skimmed them enough to have a sense of what you're talking about.
I've printed them out and will read them more carefully. I was under the
impression that nvidia was more accommodating of Linux/open-source. Now
I understand that that was with proprietary drivers that actually had
I appreciate your trying to help when I can't be of much help in helping
you be of help.
Decatur, GA USA
eeweir at bellsouth.net
More information about the Ubuntu-us-ga