NationStates Jolt Archive

I just got my new computer, and went to install ubuntu on it using the live cd I downloaded from here (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download). I popped the disc into my drive, and a message box popped up that looked like this;

I/O Error
Error reading boot disc
[Reboot]

Thinking the problem occured when I burned the disc, I burned a second copy, only to the same results. So I turn to the computer experts of NSG for help. Do I need to re-download the disc-image or is the problem somewhere else?

1. It's either the ISO image you downloaded was corrupted - download a fresh ISO image.
2. Your CD/DVD drive is stuffed and can't read correctly
3. The burner used is not burning correctly

I've had no issues with the Kubuntu 7.10 ISO.

Make sure you are not trying to force a CD drive to read a DVD.

I know this isn't helpful or hugely relevant, but it seems somehow appropriate.

http://xkcd.com/178/

Are you sure you've set your BIOS (or equivalent thereof) to attempt to boot off the optical drive before the hard drive? Because that is the message you'd get if you tried to boot off an empty hard drive.

Are you sure you've set your BIOS (or equivalent thereof) to attempt to boot off the optical drive before the hard drive? Because that is the message you'd get if you tried to boot off an empty hard drive.

Good point, most newer machines boot off CD or USB stick first before the hard drive. Old ones tend to start with floppy and hard drive.

So don't use Linux...

So don't use Linux...

lol, what kind of a lame answer is that? It is very simple to chance that setting... Just go to you BIOS and tell him to boot from disk first... Takes about 10 sec, if your new into the BIOS it might be a minute to search the right menu though...

Boot a working Windows computer. Put the CD in the drive. Open My Computer and then Right Click D: and click explore. List any files and folders.

Linux, you get what you pay for.

Linux, you get what you pay for.

On that argment, get a Slowlaris or another commercial Unix

Linux, you get what you pay for.

well a computer is basically for porn and creating perfectly legal music CD's anyway...

I know this isn't helpful or hugely relevant, but it seems somehow appropriate.

http://xkcd.com/178/

I feel that http://xkcd.com/349/ is much more accurate. >_>

So don't use Linux...

Haha, no. I'm not paying $200 for XP when microsoft is dropping support, and I'd drop my computer off a high rise before installing vista on it.

My computer is about 3 days old, and boots from disc first, so that's not my problem, so I'm downloading a new IO as I type.

Rolling squid;13361802']Haha, no. I'm not paying $200 for XP when microsoft is dropping support, and I'd drop my computer off a high rise before installing vista on it.

My computer is about 3 days old, and boots from disc first, so that's not my problem, so I'm downloading a new IO as I type.

Boot a working Windows computer. Put the CD in the drive. Open My Computer and then Right Click D: and click explore. List any files and folders.

Try that on the computer you are currently using.

Try that on the computer you are currently using.


did that, went to My computer, right clicked on D:, and the system froze. Ctrl-alt-del'd out of it, and the task bar and all of the desktop icons were gone. I ejected the CD and they popped back up.

oh, and I re-downloaded the image, only to find it had shrunk to about half the size it was before. I tried it anyway, and got the same result.

Rolling squid;13362189']did that, went to My computer, right clicked on D:, and the system froze. Ctrl-alt-del'd out of it, and the task bar and all of the desktop icons were gone. I ejected the CD and they popped back up.

oh, and I re-downloaded the image, only to find it had shrunk to about half the size it was before. I tried it anyway, and got the same result.

OK, sounds like the 2nd image got chopped!
I hope your Internet connection isn't "wobbly".

Rolling squid;13362189']did that, went to My computer, right clicked on D:, and the system froze. Ctrl-alt-del'd out of it, and the task bar and all of the desktop icons were gone. I ejected the CD and they popped back up.

oh, and I re-downloaded the image, only to find it had shrunk to about half the size it was before. I tried it anyway, and got the same result.IIRC, the iso image for the Ubuntu LiveCD should be just under 700MiB. Something is going wrong. Before you burn, check the integrity of the iso using its md5sum (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/HowToMD5SUM#head-cc4057205f46f3da4e36ee1974c50c51bd89ed24). If the image verifies, I'd recommend installing using these instructions (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BurningIsoHowto). It could be that you aren't burning the iso as an image, or that your burning software just sucks at dealing with iso images (I find this to be the case often).

What burning software are you using? I know the ISO standard for a Vista DVD is different standard from an XP one ie ISO standard 9660:1988 vs 9660:1999. Maybe the Ubuntu is the newer format.

To things, once you downloaded the images, check it by making an MD5 digest and comparing it to the one provided on the site you downloaded it from (it should be there, anyway).
And on the off chance you didn't, burn it as an image and not data.


Linux, you get what you pay for.Well, at least that's more you get than from windows :rolleyes:

Linux, nothing any good ever came out of open sores.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533581

My thread about installing Ubuntu.

Linux, nothing any good ever came out of open sores.

You seem to dislike the open source concept and linux in particular.
Why ?

Linux, nothing any good ever came out of open sores.

Oh, fuck off, troll.

Anyway, as to the actual thread: The recommendations as far as checking the hashes go is a good idea. If you're willing to wait a bit, maybe ask them to ship it to you?

You seem to dislike the open source concept and linux in particular.
Why ?
For the fun of flame-baiting.

Linux, nothing any good ever came out of open sores.

Yes, puss is rarely good and is mostly what comes out of sores. But I don't see what that has to do with Linux, unless you meant to type "source", if you did mean source, then great, you don't like Linux, but I'm getting Linux regardless to what you think, so please, you are contributing nothing to the discussion at hand. With all due respect, get out of this thread.


Now, with that out of the way, onto the real matter at hand here.

I'm using the ISO recommended by Ubuntu, I downloaded the MD5 as well and am downloading for a third time. Hopefully third times the charm.

Rolling squid;13359786']I just got my new computer, and went to install ubuntu on it using the live cd I downloaded from here (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download). I popped the disc into my drive, and a message box popped up that looked like this;

I/O Error
Error reading boot disc
[Reboot]

Thinking the problem occured when I burned the disc, I burned a second copy, only to the same results. So I turn to the computer experts of NSG for help. Do I need to re-download the disc-image or is the problem somewhere else?

Are you sure you've set your BIOS (or equivalent thereof) to attempt to boot off the optical drive before the hard drive? Because that is the message you'd get if you tried to boot off an empty hard drive.

Correct. I guess Rolling squid has checked that by now, not booting from CD so it's trying the HD next.

=========

Rolling squid;13364375']
Now, with that out of the way, onto the real matter at hand here.

I'm using the ISO recommended by Ubuntu, I downloaded the MD5 as well and am downloading for a third time. Hopefully third times the charm.

I thought, hey I'll download it myself. It gave me a choice of several mirrors, the first one in Australia failed.

I'm just saying, the incomplete downloads might not be the fault of your connection, but the mirror. You could try a different mirror from the drop down box on the download page, if third time ain't so lucky.

I repeat the advice of other posters, make sure you're burning an image, not just putting the .iso on a CD as a file. You're using a brand new blank CD of course. (I'm not sure a blank DVD would work ... anyone?)

Check the md5, if that's OK the download is OK.

If you have an old windows 95 install disk or something, you could try that to check you don't have a faulty optical drive or some such. In fact, you might want to run the Ubuntu as a live CD the first time, to see if any errors come up.

Good luck.

*goes to check out this Ubuntu he's been hearing about*

Snip

*goes to check out this Ubuntu he's been hearing about*

Its a good distro ...and its dev version is bleeding edge.

I am much more of a Debian guy myself but like ubuntu just because it feels pretty familiar when I am in it.

Its a good distro ...and its dev version is bleeding edge.

I am much more of a Debian guy myself but like ubuntu just because it feels pretty familiar when I am in it.

This might be a suitable moment to ask: how do I install Debian with a lightweight desktop manager? Is it an option from the netinstall disk, 'cos I've never seen an option other than Gnome or KDE?

The computer is rather slow, about the same as what I'm using now, and Gnome seems to be the main thing holding this one down ...

Just now, I'm thinking I'll try Ubuntu on the computer in question. It's an Athlon 2500+ which I rather misguidedly bought off a friend. But Ubuntu comes with Gnome ?

But Ubuntu comes with Gnome ?

Ubuntu comes with Gnome, yes. An Athlon 2500+ should be fast enough, but I wouldn't recommend using Gnome if you have 512MB RAM or less. For a lighter and faster alternative, try Xubuntu, which is Ubuntu with Xfce instead of Gnome.

Ubuntu comes with Gnome, yes. An Athlon 2500+ should be fast enough, but I wouldn't recommend using Gnome if you have 512MB RAM or less. For a lighter and faster alternative, try Xubuntu, which is Ubuntu with Xfce instead of Gnome.

Xfce sounds good. Thanks, I'll try.

One thing I have plenty of is DDR RAM. When these old things finally go out to pasture, it would be pretty cool to be able to put all that old RAM on a card, make a solid-state drive ...

Its a good distro ...and its dev version is bleeding edge.

I am much more of a Debian guy myself but like ubuntu just because it feels pretty familiar when I am in it.
I like Ubuntu for its immense LiveCD skills. Without it, I would have had to figure out Gentoo style networking in order to install Gentoo (which btw I borked in about a week).

This might be a suitable moment to ask: how do I install Debian with a lightweight desktop manager? Is it an option from the netinstall disk, 'cos I've never seen an option other than Gnome or KDE?

The computer is rather slow, about the same as what I'm using now, and Gnome seems to be the main thing holding this one down ...

Just now, I'm thinking I'll try Ubuntu on the computer in question. It's an Athlon 2500+ which I rather misguidedly bought off a friend. But Ubuntu comes with Gnome ?

Easy as heck

1) install with no desktop package selected
2) run command apt-get install x-windows-system xfce (for xorg and XFCE which is a light wm)

Vola when logging in at CLI just type "startx" and there be your gui

Ubuntu comes with Gnome, yes. An Athlon 2500+ should be fast enough, but I wouldn't recommend using Gnome if you have 512MB RAM or less. For a lighter and faster alternative, try Xubuntu, which is Ubuntu with Xfce instead of Gnome.What? I run Gnome on a PC with 386MiB of RAM and it does just swimmingly.

Ubuntu comes with Gnome, yes. An Athlon 2500+ should be fast enough, but I wouldn't recommend using Gnome if you have 512MB RAM or less. For a lighter and faster alternative, try Xubuntu, which is Ubuntu with Xfce instead of Gnome.

Debian XFCE install is practically idiot proof and even lighter weight then the ubuntu counterpart

www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/computers/debian_work2.png :-D

I like Ubuntu for its immense LiveCD skills. Without it, I would have had to figure out Gentoo style networking in order to install Gentoo (which btw I borked in about a week).

The debian installer is more up my ally ... ubuntu server copy's it as well

I just cant get comfortable with the overhead or install footprint of ubuntu for a personel choice

What? I run Gnome on a PC with 386MiB of RAM and it does just swimmingly.

Yeah but I dont like to give it the resources I am still an XFCE fan myself

Oh, crap! I just had the same problem as the OP!

I have a 284.2 MB (297987775 bytes) .iso file ... called ubuntu-7.10-desktop-i386.iso

A few moments ago, it was 30-something-% downloaded, suddenly it said it was finished.

It opens with fileroller, which shows 694.4 MB of files in the .iso

I'm going to try burning it to a CD, but something tells me this isn't right.

First, I'll md5 it.
EDIT: md5's don't match. 30749c30566e8b92978e83ab4332e650 for what I downloaded.

It's real weird, because I can't remember a download failing by suddenly "finishing" like that. My mirror was Australia Netspace.

www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/computers/debian_work2.png :-D

Nano ftw.

/hates vi and emacs

Nano ftw.

/hates vi and emacs

Agreed and I dislike Pico because of the standard pine crap that comes with it too

One of my co-workers figured out context highlighting in it (I would not use it in nano myself but hey)

I found out debian has a scite package for gui editors which I like

Easy as heck

1) install with no desktop package selected
2) run command apt-get install x-windows-system xfce (for xorg and XFCE which is a light wm)

Vola when logging in at CLI just type "startx" and there be your gui

Sure sounds easy.

I had trouble last time I tried, I think because I already had a window manager. I think I was trying to 'downgrade' from Gnome to fvwm.

Just now this other thing has me bugged. Fileroller is probably wrong in giving the contents of the iso as 694.4 MB, that's probably what is meant to be there, but I'm seeing no errors. The md5's don't match.

Sure sounds easy.

I had trouble last time I tried, I think because I already had a window manager. I think I was trying to 'downgrade' from Gnome to fvwm.

Just now this other thing has me bugged. Fileroller is probably wrong in giving the contents of the iso as 694.4 MB, that's probably what is meant to be there, but I'm seeing no errors. The md5's don't match.

Yeah sounds like something is borked with the image there ...

As far as it goes I am a debian and XFCE fan because I always push the system I am on as far as it goes I need performance VS frills ... but as you can see I got it lookin pretty good :)

But I forget sometimes I am old school CLI only style so the gui really is mostly to just support my rdesktop sessions and Vmware (though if I wanted I suppose I could remotely use the console but I hate the performance)

What? I run Gnome on a PC with 386MiB of RAM and it does just swimmingly.
Gnome is fine on 256MB even. Well, it's fine until you try to run some programs...
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6330/screenshotsystemmonitorfi3.png
Debian XFCE install is practically idiot proof and even lighter weight then the ubuntu counterpart

www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/computers/debian_work2.png :-D

Debian is nice, but really, how are your instructions more idiot proof than simply installing Xubuntu and have it all set up from the start? They're not. :)

Gnome is fine on 256MB even. Well, it's fine until you try to run some programs...
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6330/screenshotsystemmonitorfi3.png


Debian is nice, but really, how are your instructions more idiot proof than simply installing Xubuntu and have it all set up from the start? They're not. :)
How are they really harder?

Edit: (Sounded wrong)
He had specifically asked about a Debian light weight WM install, If he had asked for a comparison I would have given my opinion in that matter.

I have lots of reasons for choosing Debian both because of experiences and feature sets that I like in it and I find to be virtues of the Distro that appeal to me. If that is the discussion I will gladly share my opinion on the two but as is thats not where I was going with it

How are they really harder?

Edit: (Sounded wrong)
He had specifically asked about a Debian light weight WM install, If he had asked for a comparison I would have given my opinion in that matter.

Yeah, I see that now. More reading comprehension from my side in the future is promised.

It should probably be mentioned that you can easily install any desktop environment on both Debian and Ubuntu. If you for example install regular Ubuntu and are not happy with Gnome, you can after that install the xubuntu-desktop package, log out and then at the login screen select Xfce instead of Gnome. It's really that simple.

Yeah, I see that now. More reading comprehension from my side in the future is promised.

It should probably be mentioned that you can easily install any desktop environment on both Debian and Ubuntu. If you for example install regular Ubuntu and are not happy with Gnome, you can after that install the xubuntu-desktop package, log out and then at the login screen select Xfce instead of Gnome. It's really that simple.

And thats fine no worries I do it all the time :)

Agreed ... lol the first time I did that I spent like half a fucking hour trying to find the config file (I am such an old school cli fan) when I found out the session button at logon would change login windows manager prefferences

But personally when I do ubuntu I actually get the server edition and bring it up from there but thats me and what I am comfortable with I suppose

Edit: except this time I did full install
www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/computers/cube.jpg

Gnome is fine on 256MB even. Well, it's fine until you try to run some programs...
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6330/screenshotsystemmonitorfi3.png
Yeee. See, for me FF is bloated when it hits 120MiB and I use Deluge instead of KTorrent because it doesn't bring in all that KDE dependency. For me that would save about 300MiB, which would make it much more reasonable.

And thats fine no worries I do it all the time :)

Agreed ... lol the first time I did that I spent like half a fucking hour trying to find the config file (I am such an old school cli fan) when I found out the session button at logon would change login windows manager prefferences

But personally when I do ubuntu I actually get the server edition and bring it up from there but thats me and what I am comfortable with I suppose

Edit: except this time I did full install
www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/computers/cube.jpg
404

404

Lol try again I edited a while ago I forgot an S on one of the folders. but it is correct even in your quote :)

Yeee. See, for me FF is bloated when it hits 120MiB and I use Deluge instead of KTorrent because it doesn't bring in all that KDE dependency. For me that would save about 300MiB, which would make it much more reasonable.

Last I tried Deluge it was too buggy to be used, but perhaps it's time I gave it another shot. KTorrent works fine, and is probably the best GUI bittorrent client for Linux, but it is rather memory hungry and does of course look very out of place in Gnome. It sure would be nice if I could switch it for something using GTK.

Last I tried Deluge it was too buggy to be used, but perhaps it's time I gave it another shot. KTorrent works fine, and is probably the best GUI bittorrent client for Linux, but it is rather memory hungry and does of course look very out of place in Gnome. It sure would be nice if I could switch it for something using GTK.

I lean towards azureus

There's something really weird about this disk.

The iso I mentioned before (the 284.4 MB 'broken' iso) burnt onto a 800MB blank CD without errors, using GnomeBaker.

I started the same thing on a Windows computer, but I got an error "the entered block size does not correspond to the image length. The block size may be wrong. Do you want to correct the value or ignore the problem?"

When I clicked "correct" it says the block size is 2352.

I decided it wasn't worth the coaster, and put the disk I'd burnt with GnomeBaker into the Windows computer. (The burnt data on it looked like 284 MB, btw.) An autorun thing popped up, saying "Ubuntu / Starting browser" but nothing else happened. Then the data size in Explorer changed from 690-something to 1.06 GB, with 396 MB of space free ... on a 800 MB CD.

Whatever damn filesystem Ubuntu uses, it has shitall integrity testing.

OK, rebooting the windows computer to see if I can boot from the CD...

It boots. I get a Ubuntu menu, cursor down to "Check CD for defects."

After a few seconds, a box pops up with exactly what the OP reported (Fass and I were wrong there, it's an error for the optical medium.)

I/O error
Error reading boot CD.
[Reboot]

I'm downloading a slightly different version, from the same mirror. This time I clicked the "alternate desktop CD" box on the download page. I'll let y'all know how that goes ...

Rolling squid;13364834']third time was decidley unlucky, It only got about 44,000kb before stoping. I'm changing morrors like you said, the only probelm is I don't know where any of the mirrors are. (I've been using the xmission one) Seeing as I"m in Northeast Ohio, I chose Rochester, as it was the closest option that I could find on a map.

Thats cool give it a shot ... If I had a good way to send the ISO I have to you I would :) I know that it works.

Ill download one on a public server I have and verify and give you the link when I verify that it works :)

Correct. I guess Rolling squid has checked that by now, not booting from CD so it's trying the HD next.

=========



I thought, hey I'll download it myself. It gave me a choice of several mirrors, the first one in Australia failed.

I'm just saying, the incomplete downloads might not be the fault of your connection, but the mirror. You could try a different mirror from the drop down box on the download page, if third time ain't so lucky.

I repeat the advice of other posters, make sure you're burning an image, not just putting the .iso on a CD as a file. You're using a brand new blank CD of course. (I'm not sure a blank DVD would work ... anyone?)

Check the md5, if that's OK the download is OK.

If you have an old windows 95 install disk or something, you could try that to check you don't have a faulty optical drive or some such. In fact, you might want to run the Ubuntu as a live CD the first time, to see if any errors come up.

Good luck.

*goes to check out this Ubuntu he's been hearing about*

third time was decidley unlucky, It only got about 44,000kb before stoping. I'm changing morrors like you said, the only probelm is I don't know where any of the mirrors are. (I've been using the xmission one) Seeing as I"m in Northeast Ohio, I chose Rochester, as it was the closest option that I could find on a map.

Well in less then an hour I will have an image up that I know that works and can give a link out but you will have to PM me for the link I dont want the bandwidth going crazy on that server

Yeee. See, for me FF is bloated when it hits 120MiB

Have you tried the beta? Its memory imprint is much more conservative and seems to stay that way.

I lean towards azureus
I started using KTorrent because Azureus was just too slow.

There's something really weird about this disk.

The iso I mentioned before (the 284.4 MB 'broken' iso) burnt onto a 800MB blank CD without errors, using GnomeBaker.
If it's that small, it's not the full file. Instead of using Firefox to download, get the link and use wget (I'm assuming you're on Linux since you're talking about GnomeBaker). With wget, you can resume the download if it fails instead of starting over from the beginning.

Rolling squid;13364834']third time was decidley unlucky, It only got about 44,000kb before stoping. I'm changing morrors like you said, the only probelm is I don't know where any of the mirrors are. (I've been using the xmission one) Seeing as I"m in Northeast Ohio, I chose Rochester, as it was the closest option that I could find on a map.

Firefox is notoriously unreliable when it comes to downloads. If a file fails for some reason, Firefox will usually mark it as completed anyway. I'm not sure what kind of download tools Windows has, if any, but you should try to find one and use it.

Have you tried the beta? Its memory imprint is much more conservative and seems to stay that way.

Awesome I was hoping to see that, the version of iceweasel they have out is not bad but I would like to see a newer version with lower memory footprint

Awesome I was hoping to see that, the version of iceweasel they have out is not bad but I would like to see a newer version with lower memory footprint

I'm using the beta as well. :)

I find it to be slightly better memory-wise, but the biggest improvement is that it feels overall quicker and snappier. Things like switching between tabs and navigating menus is almost acceptably fast now. The new bookmark system with tags has the possibility to become really interesting, though it's fairly useless now since there aren't any really good ways to search by tag.

I just posted again about my own attempts with the broken iso, I think I timewarped you. :)

Rolling squid;13364834']third time was decidley unlucky, It only got about 44,000kb before stoping. I'm changing morrors like you said, the only probelm is I don't know where any of the mirrors are. (I've been using the xmission one) Seeing as I"m in Northeast Ohio, I chose Rochester, as it was the closest option that I could find on a map.

I'd use one which is hosted on my own ISP, except there aren't any. I believe netspace has good peerage within Australia, so that's more important I think than physical location.

It sure is weird. I download isos all the time, and I've never known them to stop suddenly like that (I did pause it a few times tho) ... if the one I'm doing does it too, I'm gonna use wget so I can at least see a plausible error. Grrr.

Firefox is notoriously unreliable when it comes to downloads. If a file fails for some reason, Firefox will usually mark it as completed anyway. I'm not sure what kind of download tools Windows has, if any, but you should try to find one and use it.

How about wget for windows (http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/wget.htm)? :)

Tho' like I say, I've downloaded dozens of full isos using Firefox, and this was the first one to fail. If it does it again, I'll resume with wget -r

EDIT: wget -r is recursive (cool for getting whole folders of stuff) but I actually mean wget -c ... for "continue." Can never remember that.

Rolling squid;13364886']I'm using IE, so firefox isn't the problem.



That would be amazing... I'd have your baby for you if you did that, if it wasn’t biologically impossible.

I actually am going to put it on my hosted web server they have plenty of bandwidth to leave it up ... 30 minuits till I have the ISO and another 30 to put it on my server for ya.

I wish my home was not asymetric cause I would not have to download it again :)

Firefox is notoriously unreliable when it comes to downloads. If a file fails for some reason, Firefox will usually mark it as completed anyway. I'm not sure what kind of download tools Windows has, if any, but you should try to find one and use it.

I'm using IE, so firefox isn't the problem.

Thats cool give it a shot ... If I had a good way to send the ISO I have to you I would I know that it works.

Ill download one on a public server I have and verify and give you the link when I verify that it works

That would be amazing... I'd have your baby for you if you did that, if it wasn’t biologically impossible.

Have you tried the beta? Its memory imprint is much more conservative and seems to stay that way.
No. I haven't had much chance. I've been interested in it. I've heard it is quite the browser.

No. I haven't had much chance. I've been interested in it. I've heard it is quite the browser.

Well, it's just a click or two away. Be aware it doesn't really care about your previous non-beta installation which it likes to rape and defile.

Well, it's just a click or two away. Be aware it doesn't really care about your previous non-beta installation which it likes to rape and defile.I'm fine with that. Its what happened during the FF2 betas too. I would have tried it by now, but my desktop has been in a perpetual state of abyss since about Christmas day.

Ohhhhkaaaayy, this time it just stalled for five minutes, so I cancelled the dl.

Opened a terminal. Went to the Desktop (where the partial file was), typed

wget -c ftp://ftp.netspace.net.au/pub/ubuntu/releases/7.10/ubuntu-7.10-desktop-i386.iso

... it's doing it now. Third time is the charm :rolleyes:

Incidentally, the check box on the Ubuntu page doesn't seem to work, it was giving me -desktop- anyway, not the ubuntu-7.10-alternate-i386.iso I can see in the ftp directory. Hugely impressive that is ... I noticed a torrent link there too.

I insist on making this work, it's just a damn ftp transfer. But thanks anyway UpwardThrust ! U can TG me.

EDIT: Hey, another cool thing is my browser is responding a whole lot quicker than when it was handling the download. wget ftw!

Ohhhhkaaaayy, this time it just stalled for five minutes, so I cancelled the dl.

Opened a terminal. Went to the Desktop (where the partial file was), typed

wget -c ftp://ftp.netspace.net.au/pub/ubuntu/releases/7.10/ubuntu-7.10-desktop-i386.iso

... it's doing it now. Third time is the charm :rolleyes:

Incidentally, the check box on the Ubuntu page doesn't seem to work, it was giving me -desktop- anyway, not the ubuntu-7.10-alternate-i386.iso I can see in the ftp directory. Hugely impressive that is ... I noticed a torrent link there too.

I insist on making this work, it's just a damn ftp transfer. But thanks anyway UpwardThrust !

EDIT: Hey, another cool thing is my browser is responding a whole lot quicker than when it was handling the download. wget ftw!

Either way its being uploaded to my webserver right now Ill give the link when done and you are welcome to pull it (as I know it works) at your leisure

www.youdontevenrealize.com/ubuntu-7.10-desktop-i386.iso

Ill leave it up for a week or until bandwidth takes off ... go for it if your other mirror does not work

Ok, so I downloaded the ISO from the Rochester mirrors, and once it was done, I ran a hash check using the winMd5sum downloaded from the link on Ubuntu's wiki. The check sums returned as the same, so I burned the disc to CD and popped it in the drive, only to still get the "Error, I/O error, [reboot]" message box when I went to check the CD for defects.
If I understand what's going on here, the OP is fine, and the problem is with my computer. I know it's not the BIOS settings, so that seems to leave the disc drive. Is the drive bad, or is the problem something else? Also, sorry if this seems a bit weird or if I made a fairly obvious mistake in my logic, it's about 12:30am here and I should probably get to bed.

Rolling squid;13365044']Ok, so I downloaded the ISO from the Rochester mirrors, and once it was done, I ran a hash check using the winMd5sum downloaded from the link on Ubuntu's wiki. The check sums returned as the same, so I burned the disc to CD and popped it in the drive, only to still get the "Error, I/O error, [reboot]" message box when I went to check the CD for defects.
If I understand what's going on here, the OP is fine, and the problem is with my computer. I know it's not the BIOS settings, so that seems to leave the disc drive. Is the drive bad, or is the problem something else? Also, sorry if this seems a bit weird or if I made a fairly obvious mistake in my logic, it's about 12:30am here and I should probably get to bed.

Now that the md5 sum match, we can be sure that the ISO image is OK. If you still can't browse the CD from Windows, it didn't burn correctly. This could be a problem with the burner or the software you use to burn, or even the combination of CD media and burner. How about trying another program to burn with? I'm not a Windows user so I can't recommend one to you, but there surely has to be some good and free ones available.

If you can browse the CD now, it's not bootable for some reason. In that case, try to find another CD that you know is bootable, such as a Windows CD, and see if you can boot from that or not.

Now that the md5 sum match, we can be sure that the ISO image is OK.

Yeah, good enough for me.

If you still can't browse the CD from Windows, it didn't burn correctly. This could be a problem with the burner or the software you use to burn, or even the combination of CD media and burner. How about trying another program to burn with? I'm not a Windows user so I can't recommend one to you, but there surely has to be some good and free ones available.

I've downloaded but not yet tried this burning software, but it's GPL, for windows, and very small:

InfraRecorder for windows. (http://infrarecorder.sourceforge.net/?page_id=5)

If you can browse the CD now, it's not bootable for some reason. In that case, try to find another CD that you know is bootable, such as a Windows CD, and see if you can boot from that or not.

He saw the Ubuntu menu, so it booted. But then the error.

If Rolling squid doesn't have any other boot disk, they could perhaps try the 50 MB Damn Small Linux (http://dslos.com/). Of course there are smaller boot disks which would take less time to dl, but that one has a GUI, and the linux startup log is a great diagnostic for hardware.

download finished (with wget of course)
md5 OK
I had a fixation failure writing the CD, which as luck would have it was my very last blank.
CD reads OK in Linux AND Windows, has a capacity of 1.4 GB. Not ISO 9660, then. ;)
Booted in P4
Ubuntu menu OK.
Disk integrity check from that menu OK.
Reboots.
Runs as Live CD by default ... Gnome desktop OK.

Installer doesn't understand my RAID card, but that's no surprise.

I don't have a problem here.
I'm off to dinner, I'll bludge a couple of blank CD's and try InfraReader just on spec.

Rolling squid;13365044']Ok, so I downloaded the ISO from the Rochester mirrors, and once it was done, I ran a hash check using the winMd5sum downloaded from the link on Ubuntu's wiki. The check sums returned as the same, so I burned the disc to CD and popped it in the drive, only to still get the "Error, I/O error, [reboot]" message box when I went to check the CD for defects.
If I understand what's going on here, the OP is fine, and the problem is with my computer. I know it's not the BIOS settings, so that seems to leave the disc drive. Is the drive bad, or is the problem something else? Also, sorry if this seems a bit weird or if I made a fairly obvious mistake in my logic, it's about 12:30am here and I should probably get to bed.
Does the disc work in a working computer? Can you browse it?

InfraRecorder (Windows) has an option in the "Actions" menu to burn an image.
I burnt the image to disk, it boots and runs Ubuntu as a Live CD, the install option is sitting on the desktop.

The only thing I have to add, is that the lack of a recognized HD didn't stop the CD booting.

Like Posi says, try the Ubuntu disk in a different computer. Running as a Live CD it shouldn't affect the HD ... so you (RS) could use the disk in the computer you were on the net with.

(Browsing however doesn't prove much, even the first disk I burnt from a truncated .iso seemed to have a directory tree on it ... but I didn't waste time trying to copy the files off it, I knew there was stuff missing.)

InfraRecorder is a good piece of software. I use it all the time, particularly when I've lost a previously burned Ultimate Boot CD (I mess around with my laptop a lot just for the hell of it, so as you can guess I often need some serious recovery tools as well (especially after that time I damaged the MBR and the partition table in one sitting...) :D).
Last time I burnt a Linux distro (probably Ubuntu, but I can't remember) with it it worked absolutely fine.

As for the Firefox memory thing, I don't have that problem any more because I moved to Opera. The only disadvantage of Opera is that it's closed source, but it's one helluva good browser too, and more standards compliant than even Firefox (particularly for CSS, which isn't surprising given that one of its long-time programmers is the guy who invented CSS).
The only thing that annoys me are the two times I've come across sites claiming they didn't support Opera. I tried masking as Fx on both, and one worked, but the other must have checked for the presence of document.opera or something and still refused to let me browse - even though the reason it listed for blocking Opera had been fixed several versions before!
Still, two sites out of thousands isn't bad.

As for the I/O problem, sounds like an optical drive problem.

InfraRecorder is a good piece of software. I use it all the time

Excellent! I guessed well then. :)

As for the I/O problem, sounds like an optical drive problem.

How would I tell if the problem is with the reader or with the burner?

How old is the reader drive? I find after about 3 years of constant use, optical drives start playing up.

Excellent! I guessed well then. :)

You did indeed. :)

Rolling squid;13365506']How would I tell if the problem is with the reader or with the burner?

Oh, dear... Hmmm...
Can't really help there, I'm afraid. You could try every CD you could find and see if problems happen with all of them, but that's impractical and not likely to be too accurate either, as your ordinary game or DVD is quite different from an entire operating system. In general, the former can handle faults fairly well; an OS, of course, needs to be pretty much perfect.

Otherwise, just burn a few CDs and test them in other drives.

How old is the reader drive? I find after about 3 years of constant use, optical drives start playing up.

less than a week old, the burner is about five years old, so that's probably my problem. In that case, I"ll just pick up a 1gb flashdrive, move the ISO to that, and boot from the USB port.

Wouldn't advise that unless you do a bit of research into it first.
Getting Linux to boot properly from flash drives, even from Live distributions, is a right pain in the backside.

Wouldn't advise that unless you do a bit of research into it first.
Getting Linux to boot properly from flash drives, even from Live distributions, is a right pain in the backside.
Though I hear a slackware ISO install is not too bad ... no personal experience though

Rolling squid;13365506']How would I tell if the problem is with the reader or with the burner?

Try and boot from the disk you made, on the computer you burnt the disk with.

Do the CD integrity check. If it checks out OK, I guess the new optical drive is the problem. (It might have had a nasty shock in shipping for instance.)

If that doesn't work, the problem is with the burner, pretty much for certain.


Just a thought ... the new computer doesn't have a 64-bit processor by any chance? (I.e. new AMD) There's a different image for those, though I'd expect the i386 (32-bit) version to work on them (just not the other way around.)

Wouldn't advise that unless you do a bit of research into it first.
Getting Linux to boot properly from flash drives, even from Live distributions, is a right pain in the backside.

It worked for me, but I already had the OS running live from the CD.
Like any installation, it needs a bootloader and a diskmap, and I wouldn't be trying to do that from inside Windows.
I'm pretty sure just putting the ISO for a CD on the flash drive won't work.

EDIT:Ubuntu help recommends this shell script: isotostick.sh (http://www.startx.ro/sugar/). Also gives a manual method (https://help.ubuntu.com/7.04/installation-guide/i386/boot-usb-files.html).

Try and boot from the disk you made, on the computer you burnt the disk with.

Do the CD integrity check. If it checks out OK, I guess the new optical drive is the problem. (It might have had a nasty shock in shipping for instance.)

If that doesn't work, the problem is with the burner, pretty much for certain.


Just a thought ... the new computer doesn't have a 64-bit processor by any chance? (I.e. new AMD) There's a different image for those, though I'd expect the i386 (32-bit) version to work on them (just not the other way around.)

yea, it's a 64bit, and the old one's a 32bit, so I can't boot it from CD to check.

Rolling squid;13365986']yea, it's a 64bit, and the old one's a 32bit, so I can't boot it from CD to check.

CD blanks are pretty cheap, you could burn more copies and see if you can get one which works.

Old burners get a bit weak, sometimes they can still burn OK at reduced speed. You could also try a different brand of blank CD.

Have you tried any other boot CD in the new computer?

Well, it's just a click or two away. Be aware it doesn't really care about your previous non-beta installation which it likes to rape and defile.I'm using it now, on Vista. I like the new 'applications' tab in preferences. It also renders pages quite slowly. I can see it moving objects in the forums while the page is still loading. Otherwise, nothing really stands out. Course, I have to find a new tab-browsing preferences extension.

I'm using it now, on Vista. I like the new 'applications' tab in preferences. It also renders pages quite slowly. I can see it moving objects in the forums while the page is still loading. Otherwise, nothing really stands out. Course, I have to find a new tab-browsing preferences extension.

Move to Opera. ;)

It worked for me, but I already had the OS running live from the CD.
Like any installation, it needs a bootloader and a diskmap, and I wouldn't be trying to do that from inside Windows.
I'm pretty sure just putting the ISO for a CD on the flash drive won't work.

EDIT:Ubuntu help recommends this shell script: isotostick.sh (http://www.startx.ro/sugar/). Also gives a manual method (https://help.ubuntu.com/7.04/installation-guide/i386/boot-usb-files.html).

Yes, I tried those. It didn't work all that well for me, which is why I called it a pain. :)

I'm using it now, on Vista. I like the new 'applications' tab in preferences. It also renders pages quite slowly. I can see it moving objects in the forums while the page is still loading.

On my comp, it loads pages much faster than FF 2, and this seeing it "moving object in the forums while the page is still loading" never occurs. The forum, when Jolt isn't being a bitch, loads too quick... dare I say it, but maybe it's your connection or computer? Or it could be my usage of Swiftfox...

Otherwise, nothing really stands out. Course, I have to find a new tab-browsing preferences extension.

Monitor the memory usage for a while. That stands out. For me, it also loads much faster and is much more responsive when switching tabs. The only thing I don't like is the new url autocompletion behaviour, but I've disabled at least its ugly huge results.

I have a little question about linux as well... You see, i am running xp now, which is rather good for my needs, but don't want to be forced to use vista.

I had fedora running for a while on my pc (which was in my eyes even better then xp) but had a rather big problem with it... It didn't detect my wifi (and some other minor things) automatically, and i didn't know where to find the patches that would be needed to use it anyway (did had a lot to do, with not that much time, so i couldn't spend much time on it)
Now i am running xp again since i had a total lack of time to fix everything. But it made me wondering what the best distribution would be the best for a user like me.

A quick profile:
- still a student
- do know too much from PC's to be willing to use vista, but too less to know the exact difference between the several distributions
- do run quite a bunch of programs at the same time

What i would like to know is:
- where can i find much info about the different distributions, so i can make up my mind which one would be the best for me.
- where can i find several "patches" for when that distribution doesn't find all exits automatically?

I am already an openoffice user, so it ain't needed to point out where i can find that ;)

Thanks in advance

I have a little question about linux as well... You see, i am running xp now, which is rather good for my needs, but don't want to be forced to use vista.

I had fedora running for a while on my pc (which was in my eyes even better then xp) but had a rather big problem with it... It didn't detect my wifi (and some other minor things) automatically, and i didn't know where to find the patches that would be needed to use it anyway (did had a lot to do, with not that much time, so i couldn't spend much time on it)
Now i am running xp again since i had a total lack of time to fix everything. But it made me wondering what the best distribution would be the best for a user like me.

A quick profile:
- still a student
- do know too much from PC's to be willing to use vista, but too less to know the exact difference between the several distributions
- do run quite a bunch of programs at the same time

What i would like to know is:
- where can i find much info about the different distributions, so i can make up my mind which one would be the best for me.
- where can i find several "patches" for when that distribution doesn't find all exits automatically?

I am already an openoffice user, so it ain't needed to point out where i can find that ;)

Thanks in advance

Ubuntu, basically. It's not perfect, but it should be quite good enough for your needs, and easy to get started with. If you're willing to do a bit more configuration and the like, Debian is good, but I'd highly recommend Ubuntu.

http://ubuntu.com/ They will ship you free CDs, or you can download and burn it yourself. Have fun!

Thanks a lot :)

ok, more problems. I got ubuntu installed on my computer, and all seemed to be going well, untill I went to install the motherboard drivers. Instead of any sort of installer, a window opened that had a bunch of files in them. Poking around in the files, some of them were text files, others were actual software. But the problem is, whenever I would click on a file, a prompt would ask me if i wanted to run it or display the contense. If I hit "run", nothing happened, the prompt simply closed. Help!

oh, I have this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128050) motherboard.

Rolling squid;13367917']ok, more problems. I got ubuntu installed on my computer, and all seemed to be going well, untill I went to install the motherboard drivers. Instead of any sort of installer, a window opened that had a bunch of files in them. Poking around in the files, some of them were text files, others were actual software. But the problem is, whenever I would click on a file, a prompt would ask me if i wanted to run it or display the contense. If I hit "run", nothing happened, the prompt simply closed. Help!

oh, I have this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128050) motherboard.

What drivers are you trying to install? Link, please.

So don't use Linux...

Isn't that alot like saying, "So don't use air..."?

Isn't that alot like saying, "So don't use air..."?

Well, he obviously doesn't know that the Interwebs mostly run on *nix...

I have a little question about linux as well... You see, i am running xp now, which is rather good for my needs, but don't want to be forced to use vista.

I had fedora running for a while on my pc (which was in my eyes even better then xp) but had a rather big problem with it... It didn't detect my wifi (and some other minor things) automatically, and i didn't know where to find the patches that would be needed to use it anyway (did had a lot to do, with not that much time, so i couldn't spend much time on it)
Now i am running xp again since i had a total lack of time to fix everything. But it made me wondering what the best distribution would be the best for a user like me.

A quick profile:
- still a student
- do know too much from PC's to be willing to use vista, but too less to know the exact difference between the several distributions
- do run quite a bunch of programs at the same time

What i would like to know is:
- where can i find much info about the different distributions, so i can make up my mind which one would be the best for me.
- where can i find several "patches" for when that distribution doesn't find all exits automatically?

I am already an openoffice user, so it ain't needed to point out where i can find that ;)

Thanks in advance

I always recommend Ubuntu to new users because it has a large and friendly community that it's easy to get support from, but technically, Fedora is just as good and also a good choice, as is any of the other big and popular distros such as SUSE and Mandriva.

Wifi is still one of things that need a lot of work in Linux, but it's getting better all the time. If it didn't work 6 months ago, there's a pretty good chance it'll work now, without any manual patching, or if not, in a couple of months.

What drivers are you trying to install? Link, please.

the drivers that go with the motherboard I linked to.

Rolling squid;13368048']the drivers that go with the motherboard I linked to.

Yes, but where are you getting them from? Is it source code that needs to be compiled, or is it a binary .deb? *hopes you're not actually trying to install windows drivers*

Yes, but where are you getting them from? Is it source code that needs to be compiled, or is it a binary .deb? *hopes you're not actually trying to install windows drivers*

*headdesk* crap, I feel like an idiot now. Thanks for spotting that.

Rolling squid;13368147']*headdesk* crap, I feel like an idiot now. Thanks for spotting that.

Ok... I'll save you a lot of grief: windows software doesn't run on Linux, just like it doesn't on Mac OS X and vice versa.

Now, if Ubuntu is working on your computer, why would you want to install drivers for your motherboard? Does it not work, or what? I mean, if it didn't work, Ubuntu wouldn't run. So, what's the beef?

Ok... I'll save you a lot of grief: windows software doesn't run on Linux, just like it doesn't on Mac OS X and vice versa.

Now, if Ubuntu is working on your computer, why would you want to install drivers for your motherboard? Does it not work, or what? I mean, if it didn't work, Ubuntu wouldn't run. So, what's the beef?


maybe i should have mentioned this before, but I build the computer with ubuntu on it myself, and therefore, I need to install the drivers the parts came with.

Rolling squid;13368358']maybe i should have mentioned this before, but I build the computer with ubuntu on it myself, and therefore, I need to install the drivers the parts came with.

Why? You only need to install drivers if the drivers that come with your OS don't support your hardware. If Ubuntu supports it, then there is no point in installing additional drivers. So, is something not working so you have to install additional drivers or what?

Rolling squid;13368358']maybe i should have mentioned this before, but I build the computer with ubuntu on it myself, and therefore, I need to install the drivers the parts came with.

No, you don't. Linux comes with a lot of drivers "out-of-the-box", so if the parts work, they work, and that's that.

*cries like a baby because he got VLC to play CSS DVDs, but for some reason it killed his sound*

*cries like a baby because he got VLC to play CSS DVDs, but for some reason it killed his sound*

Isn't it just about installing libdvdcss?

Why? You only need to install drivers if the drivers that come with your OS don't support your hardware. If Ubuntu supports it, then there is no point in installing additional drivers. So, is something not working so you have to install additional drivers or what?
oh. when I build a windows machine a few years ago, I had to install drivers for everything. didn't know linux was different. Thank you for all your help, and I'm sorry for being such a noob.

Isn't it just about installing libdvdcss?I'm new to Linux, gimme a break. Anyway, that's what I did - but as soon as I started VLC my laptop stopped making any sound at all, and I had to reboot to get it back. *shrugs*

I'm new to Linux, gimme a break. Anyway, that's what I did - but as soon as I started VLC my laptop stopped making any sound at all, and I had to reboot to get it back. *shrugs*

That is weird. Are you using Fedora or other distro with PulseAudio? I heard talk about it not being quite ready yet, and that sound may cut out at odd times and forcing a reboot or restart of PulseAudio. Kinda worries me that it'll be in the next version of Ubuntu.

well, I'm back again, with more problems. I inserted a wireless card and followed the instructions for setting it up to the list of instructions shown below.



1. Obtain the Windows Driver for your system and locate the file that ends with .inf.
2. Install ndisgtk (System ▸ Administration ▸ Synaptic Package Manager).
3. Open ndisgtk (System ▸ Administration ▸ Windows Wireless Drivers).
4. Select Install new driver.
5. Choose the location of your Windows .inf file and click Install.
6. Click OK

the problem came with step three, I went to system>admin>, and there was no option marked "windows wireless drivers" I did a couple of searches for it, and still turned up nothing.

Rolling squid;13368821']the problem came with step three, I went to system>admin>, and there was no option marked "windows wireless drivers" I did a couple of searches for it, and still turned up nothing.

Perhaps the menu just wasn't updated properly for some reason. I don't use the regular menus anymore, and haven't for some time, so I can't do any testing for you. Something you could try however is to open a terminal and type "killall gnome-panel" (without the quotes). This should restart the panel, and hopefully the menu entry is visible now. If it still isn't, try starting the program from a terminal by typing "ndisgtk" and pressing enter.

Move to Opera. ;)Opera bugs me. There are a couple things where the devs made an absolute horrid choice (IMO), and you cannot change it like you can on Firefox.

On my comp, it loads pages much faster than FF 2, and this seeing it "moving object in the forums while the page is still loading" never occurs. The forum, when Jolt isn't being a bitch, loads too quick... dare I say it, but maybe it's your connection or computer? Or it could be my usage of Swiftfox...You do have a significantly faster connection than me (damned Swedes). Gecko likes to render what it has as best it can. So when loading a forum it renders the text first, then the images as they are downloaded. It usually has to move the text in order to get the images to fit. It is also noticeable on sites that have huge ads in the middle of their articles.

Monitor the memory usage for a while. That stands out. For me, it also loads much faster and is much more responsive when switching tabs. The only thing I don't like is the new url autocompletion behaviour, but I've disabled at least its ugly huge results.I've rarely seen Firefox have a huge memory leak. Although the new version is somewhat lighter. I've noticed it doesn't freeze when you change tabs when it is loading the flash plugin.
EDIT: Do you use any extension to modify tab behavior? I used Tab Mix Plus in the past, but it does not support FF3. The default behavior is actually a huge pissoff.
REDIT: I checked the TMP forum, and there is an public beta that supports FF3b2.

Perhaps the menu just wasn't updated properly for some reason. I don't use the regular menus any more, and haven't for some time, so I can't do any testing for you. Something you could try however is to open a terminal and type "killall gnome-panel" (without the quotes). This should restart the panel, and hopefully the menu entry is visible now. If it still isn't, try starting the program from a terminal by typing "ndisgtk" and pressing enter.

I did both of those, the "killall" made the bar jump, but other than that did nothing. typed "ndisgtk", and the system responded that ndisgtk was not installed, despite it being present on the installed list in the Synaptic Package Manager. I told it to install ndisgtk, and got back this message: Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package ndisgtk

Not really a Linux question, but can someone say whether 64-bit Ubuntu is better than 32-bit, for a Core 2 processor?

I was under the impression the Intel processors only had "64-bit extensions" and weren't 64-bit through-and-through ... now I'm reading that they are 64-bit ... so?

Is it worth using the 64-bit version? Is it faster on Core 2? Or any other advantages?

EDIT: Do you use any extension to modify tab behavior? I used Tab Mix Plus in the past, but it does not support FF3. The default behavior is actually a huge pissoff.

I use Firefox 3 beta 2, and I have Tab Mix Plus installed. I remember having to go to the website for an extension or two instead of getting it from addons.mozilla.org. That might have been the case with Tab Mix Plus.

Rolling squid;13369003']I did both of those, the "killall" made the bar jump, but other than that did nothing. typed "ndisgtk", and the system responded that ndisgtk was not installed, despite it being present on the installed list in the Synaptic Package Manager. I told it to install ndisgtk, and got back this message:
If that's the message "apt-get install ndisgtk" gives you, I don't see how it could be visible in Synaptic. But then I don't use Synaptic, so maybe it has some weird magic going on that's unrelated to apt-get.

Click System -> Administration -> Software Sources. In there, make sure the boxes next to every repository is checked (main, universe, restricted, multiverse).

After that, run "sudo apt-get update" followed by "sudo apt-get install ndisgtk". I just tested on my system, and it installed fine.

Rolling squid;13369003']I did both of those, the "killall" made the bar jump, but other than that did nothing. typed "ndisgtk", and the system responded that ndisgtk was not installed, despite it being present on the installed list in the Synaptic Package Manager. I told it to install ndisgtk, and got back this message:
Open System->Administration->Software Sources
Tick the boxes that say Community Supported Software (Universe) and Community Supported Software with Liscencing Restrictions (Multiverse) then try to install it with Synaptic again.
Not really a Linux question, but can someone say whether 64-bit Ubuntu is better than 32-bit, for a Core 2 processor?

I was under the impression the Intel processors only had "64-bit extensions" and weren't 64-bit through-and-through ... now I'm reading that they are 64-bit ... so?

Is it worth using the 64-bit version? Is it faster on Core 2? Or any other advantages?
There won't be a real noticeable difference when using 32 vs 64 bit Linux. At least not for normal people. 32 bit does get tested more. There is no Java plugin for 64 bit Firefox (on any platform) you would have to manually install Firefox yourself if you want it. Everything else should work the same either way. If you have already installed it, I would just keep whichever you have.
The only time the jump to 64 bit makes a big difference is if you do any of the following:
3D rendering
Virtualization
Compiling big software projects
Multimedia editing
Run Windows

Also, Intel chips are fully 64 bit. The 64 bit extensions part comes from how the mainstream 64 bit architecture came to be. AMD took Intel's x86 architecture (which was a massive success, despite being one of the most awkward architectures ever designed) and added a bunch of extensions that made it a true 64 bit architecture.

I use Firefox 3 beta 2, and I have Tab Mix Plus installed. I remember having to go to the website for an extension or two instead of getting it from addons.mozilla.org. That might have been the case with Tab Mix Plus.That's was the case for TMP.

That is weird. Are you using Fedora or other distro with PulseAudio? I heard talk about it not being quite ready yet, and that sound may cut out at odd times and forcing a reboot or restart of PulseAudio. Kinda worries me that it'll be in the next version of Ubuntu.Nope, I'm running Ubuntu 7.10

Nope, I'm running Ubuntu 7.10

Alright, it was just a random idea. I've never had any trouble with sound so I haven't had any reason to learn about it. Having to reboot for something as stupid as this can't be fun at all, and I think you should try to get some support from the forum or IRC if it happens again.

Alright, it was just a random idea. I've never had any trouble with sound so I haven't had any reason to learn about it. Having to reboot for something as stupid as this can't be fun at all, and I think you should try to get some support from the forum or IRC if it happens again.Well, I feel a bit of a fool. But I figured out what the program was... VLC wasn't loading the audio channel by default (it was set to -1).

However, that didn't explain why it was crashing the sound for the rest of the computer. Anyway, I looked in the sound under preferences and it said by sound mixer was HLSA compatible. So I changed some of the settings from being automatic to just use HLSA. It seemed to do the trick. Ah well. It all works now. I might report the bugginess on the Ubuntu forums though.

Opera bugs me. There are a couple things where the devs made an absolute horrid choice (IMO), and you cannot change it like you can on Firefox.

:eek:
Heretic!

>.>
<.<

Like what, anyway? :)

If that's the message "apt-get install ndisgtk" gives you, I don't see how it could be visible in Synaptic. But then I don't use Synaptic, so maybe it has some weird magic going on that's unrelated to apt-get.

Click System -> Administration -> Software Sources. In there, make sure the boxes next to every repository is checked (main, universe, restricted, multiverse).

After that, run "sudo apt-get update" followed by "sudo apt-get install ndisgtk". I just tested on my system, and it installed fine.

I did that, everything installed fine, only in the windows wireless drivers, the icon has the words "invalid driver" under it.

:eek:
Heretic!

>.>
<.<

Like what, anyway? :)
First, disclaimer: I have not used Opera since the version before the speed dial was added. Anyhoo, I dislike the default tab behavior. When you close a tab, it either goes to the tab to the right, or the tab to the left (cannot remember which) when I prefer the last tab openned. Also, I do not like having no default search engine. Being able to do "gg search terms" or "wiki searchterms" is nice, but you could not just use "search terms" and have it use a default engine.

First, disclaimer: I have not used Opera since the version before the speed dial was added. Anyhoo, I dislike the default tab behavior. When you close a tab, it either goes to the tab to the right, or the tab to the left (cannot remember which) when I prefer the last tab openned. Also, I do not like having no default search engine. Being able to do "gg search terms" or "wiki searchterms" is nice, but you could not just use "search terms" and have it use a default engine.

The tab behaviour's been changed since then; it goes to the most recently used tab by default, and can probably be changed somewhere if you hearken for the old ways (which you clearly don't, but I was just pointing it out ;)).

As far as I can tell, the second point is still valid, and I've never been able to circumvent it - annoyingly, because on most other points Opera is the most customisable browser around.

Although Opera does have some killer features (Speed Dial is absolutely invaluable; I really wouldn't be able to leave that behind and migrate to a different browser, especially since there's no alternative for it on any of the 14 browsers I have installed (I was bored and decided to test as many browsers as I could find; inevitably, the shells for IE did rubbish) I use it more for the sum of its parts than any particular defining features - the ability to access newsgroups, e-mail and IRC in my browser is something I've not found elsewhere (its mail feature is considerably more convenient than having to go to a web-based mail site every time to check your mail); its notes feature is incredibly useful and, all in all, it's a brilliant, fast and standards-compliant (even more so than Firefox oftentimes) browser.
Oh, and it's smaller than Firefox, too. ;)

I love Firefox, but I'm an Opera zealot. :)

Rolling squid;13370365']I did that, everything installed fine, only in the windows wireless drivers, the icon has the words "invalid driver" under it.

I don't use wifi myself so I'm afraid I won't be able to help you with this problem, and neither is anyone else judging by the lack of replies. All I can give you is some general advice, which is to write down the error messages precisely as they appear and to run ndisgtk from a terminal and see if you get additional error messages there. When you have that information, search ubuntuforums.org and google for the error messages or visit #ubuntu or #ubuntuforums on FreeNode to talk to someone directly.