Tired of Blue Screen switching to Ubuntu

[Galactus]

For those keeping score, I replaced the hard drive in my computer and reinstalled Windows 7 RC to continue the evaluation. So now ever so often I get the dreaded Blue Screen. The stop message is different all the time. I have uninstalled and reinstalled all the programs one by one and it still happens. There is no extra hardware so I did not change that. The only thing I have not done is swipe out the memory because I don't have any laying around, but I did do the Windows Diagnostic test and it did not detect any problems. On top of that my screen keeps blinking for no reason. So as of now I am lost.


With that said I decided I am just going switch to Ubuntu. I really don't want to give Micro$oft any of my money which is why I didn't buy the upgrade. So I have been looking around Ubuntu and it seems to do everything that I need at this point for this machine which is basically surf the web and run an office suite. The only other thing I will need to do is watch and burn CD/DVD's.



So my question would be, are there people here who just run Ubuntu/Linux and nothing else? For those of you that dual-boot do you use Linux more than Windows. Will I have to spend a lot of time tweaking Ubuntu or has it finally gotten to the point where I can just use it with some minor tweaking like I am having to do with Windows 7?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I run Windows and Ubuntu. My web server runs CentOS.

Ubuntu may or may not require tweaking to your needs. What do you usually do with your computer?

 

[sojourner]

The latest Ubuntu is easier to install than Windows. If it weren't for my game addiction I would use nothing else.

 

[Galactus]

I will just be using it for the basics. Web surfing, email, word processing, burning, and I guess the other common things. Maybe work on a couple of websites.

I tired the new Live CD and had no problems.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

You'll probably be fine, then.

 

[Iasius]

I do use both Windows 7 and Ubuntu, so I can see why you might want to use either. However it's been ages since I've had a blue screen (many years). These days I'd be much more likely to suspect faulty hardware or drivers as a cause if I did get one and you certainly have problems there with Ubuntu as well.

 

[STR]

These days I'd be much more likely to suspect faulty hardware or drivers as a cause

Bingo. Don't blame Microsoft because ATI has s****y drivers.

 

[Amaris]

Ubuntu is solid. I love Windows 7 though, not had a single blue screen yet.
It's very fast, lightweight and stable compared to previous versions.

J.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I tried Ubuntu about a year and a half ago. It didn't impress me.

OTOH, I've had Win7 Beta, RC and now full version. The only time I've had any real problem is right now. I'm having some issue with start-up after I allow it to switch back on some access setting. It's got something to do with programs making changes or something. I switched it off (low) so I wouldn't have to hit "yes" every time I want to run/install. Then I do a system restore to right before letting the action center switch it back on, and everything runs fine.

Plus a couple minor compatibility issues, but liking it so far as the only OS on the machine.

 

[Jadzia]

Linux traditionally has a reputation of being arcane and inaccessible to those who are unwilling to devote their lives to learning it. Ubuntu has tried to make it more user friendly, but if you ever want to dig beneath the surface, to alter things around, or do anything that isn't directly tied to the gui, then you might be wishing you were back with windows.

I've tried linux a couple of times, including ubuntu, and I decided it wasn't for me. At the same time, I dislike the newer versions of windows. I don't want it. I don't like osx either.

Go with whatever works best for you, and don't feel compelled to go with the newest thing just because it's new. Software doesn't wear out.

 

[Verteron]

The stop message is different all the time. I have uninstalled and reinstalled all the programs one by one and it still happens. There is no extra hardware so I did not change that. The only thing I have not done is swipe out the memory because I don't have any laying around, but I did do the Windows Diagnostic test and it did not detect any problems. On top of that my screen keeps blinking for no reason. So as of now I am lost.

I think you have hardware problems. Switching to Ubuntu isn't going to help that. I don't know of this 'Windows Diagnostic' test you speak of but memtest86 is the gold standard for checking memory. Other possibilities include heat damage to the GPU or memory on the graphics card, or heat damage to other parts of the computer.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I run Vista. I haven't had an operating machine failure in years. I use the thing for surfing the web, doing CG modeling, video editing and so forth.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

I tried Ubuntu about a year and a half ago. It didn't impress me.

Same here, which is why I converted to Windows XP Home Edition around the same time.

 

[Galactus]

I am going to switch out the memory and see it that stops it. When I use Ubuntu I have had no problems. When I run Windows I do. It could be the memory, I haven't switch it out yet. I was talking about Windows Memory Diagnostic but I will try memtest86 to see what that turns up.

 

[USS KG5]

I tried Ubuntu about a year and a half ago. It didn't impress me.

Same here, which is why I converted to Windows XP Home Edition around the same time.

Ubuntu is great provided it does everything you want it to on first install, and has all the drivers you need.

Anything more than this is like pulling teeth, and while a nice challenge for IT bods like me is a royal PITA for mr average joe.

 

[STR]

Software doesn't wear out.

I have to disagree with that on one point. While software doesn't wear out, it does become obsolete and even anachronistic. I would not use any OS that's no longer supported by its maker, because that leaves you open to malware, which not only impacts you but others as your PC becomes a spam zombie filling my trash bin with breast and "male" enlargers.

 

[Santaman]

I think you have hardware problems. Switching to Ubuntu isn't going to help that. I don't know of this 'Windows Diagnostic' test you speak of but memtest86 is the gold standard for checking memory. Other possibilities include heat damage to the GPU or memory on the graphics card, or heat damage to other parts of the computer.

I have to agree with you, sounds like a hardware problem.

 

[Shaw]

Software doesn't wear out.

I have to disagree with that on one point. While software doesn't wear out, it does become obsolete and even anachronistic. I would not use any OS that's no longer supported by its maker, because that leaves you open to malware, which not only impacts you but others as your PC becomes a spam zombie filling my trash bin with breast and "male" enlargers.

Outside of Windows, what OS can you show as an example of this?

I have four Silicon Graphics computers, all running IRIX (versions 5.3 and 6.2) with no issues. I have two Sun Microsystems computers running Solaris 7 and OPENSTEP 4.2 with no issues. I have my IBM ThinkPad which usually runs OPENSTEP 4.2, but also Rhapsody 5.1 from time to time, with no issues. I have a Power Macintosh 8600, PowerBook 3400c and PowerBook 2300c running Mac OS 8.6 with no issues. I have a Power Macintosh 8600 and PowerBook G3 Wallstreet running Mac OS X Server 1.2 with no issues. I have a Power Macintosh G3 MiniTower, PowerMac G4 and PowerBook G3 Lombard running Mac OS X v10.3.9 with no issues.

Old unsupported operating systems are no more of a target for viruses and/or malware than they are for new software. Windows is the only target, new versions or old, it stands pretty much alone in that regard. And I don't ever recall any version of Windows being any less of a target just because Microsoft was still supporting it.

The only problem I see with running older operating systems (other than Windows) is finding software that runs on them. That has never been an issue for me as I've been around long enough to have a lot of older software.

 

[USS KG5]

Old unsupported operating systems are no more of a target for viruses and/or malware than they are for new software. Windows is the only target, new versions or old, it stands pretty much alone in that regard. And I don't ever recall any version of Windows being any less of a target just because Microsoft was still supporting it.

That is not really fair these days. Over the last year it has become more common for viruses/spyware to attack applications like Adobe Reader.

Windows 7 is as secure as most other operating systems on a basic level it seems, and MS will conitnue patching it, and therefore Windows now is a secure option.

The IPhone is apparently a popular target now, and has to be a good option for an attack.

 

[Shaw]

That is not really fair these days.

It is completely fair... and will be until the reality of using Windows changes.

Over the last year it has become more common for viruses/spyware to attack applications like Adobe Reader.

On all platforms or just Windows?

Most of the issues Adobe has with their Reader is that they have attempted to put too much into it (specially after acquiring Flash).

Windows 7 is as secure as most other operating systems on a basic level it seems, and MS will conitnue patching it, and therefore Windows now is a secure option.

So there have been no viruses and/or malware issues with Windows 7? Because it needs to be practically none for that statement to be valid.

In all of the time that Mac OS X has existed, a Mac user's chance of getting viruses and/or malware was less than that of them getting struck by lightning. And I would venture that other non-Windows platforms have had the same experiences.

Is Windows now that secure?

If you have to even think about viruses and/or malware on Windows 7, spend even a few seconds of your day worrying about it, how secure is it?

And let us not forget what we are talking about... which was older (unsupported) operating systems. Other than Windows, these weren't targets when they were supported, and are even less of a target (and in most cases completely unknown) in recent years.

The IPhone is apparently a popular target now, and has to be a good option for an attack.

Really?

Besides the fact that the iPhone isn't a personal computer (so why bring it up?), how would you define popular? I've only heard of one experimental virus which only worked on iPhones hacked by their owners. It by popular you mean it got press coverage, then Windows is the least popular platform for attacks as most attacks won't even be noted by computer related news sites.

In my home town we had a popular mountain to go to the summit of (Mt. Helix), which many people do on a nearly daily basis. That is popular. By comparison, few people actually reach the summit of Mt. Everest. That is note worthy.

This is the nature of things... pretending that it is not so isn't going to alter the facts in any way.