On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 14:06 +1100, Horst G. Burkhardt III wrote:
> I agree completely with John here.
>
> Linux especially is known to be more sensitive to bad hardware than BSD or
> Windows or Mac - possibly because tighter tolerances are needed to
> maintain relative sanity when it comes to the kernel ;-)
Not an argument but a comment here. When I upgraded to XP from ME, I
had to downgrade my hardware because XP was less fault tolerant of my
RAM, and DVD/DVD-Burner setups. 10.0, my everyday boot, 10.2, my try it
and see boot, Ubuntu and LinuxXP had not problems what so ever. Linux-4
Windows -1 :)
> If this were 1981 and a 16K chip of static RAM was the best available and
> cost about $1200 i'd agree. But RAM really is cheap now, so why risk it?
> Also, faulty RAM will just slow down your computer and make it more
> unstable anyway.
{.........}
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
