[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Rather Odd freeze ups (and more :)



I have a not so related Linux question (with the exception that I run
Linux) about some really weird, hard, lockups.  Here's the deal:
I had a ageing Cyrix 586/120 that started to seem *really* slow.  Any how,
I bought a Abit-BH6 Board, a Intel Celeron 300A, some PC-100 RAM, and used
the following hard ware from my old machine : A S3 Trio 64v+ video card,
Maxtor HD, and a 3.5 Floppy (there is other stuff, but I don't have it
installed to help trouble shoot).  So, I plug every thing in and it works,
I Recompile my kernel for the PPro, ran some other CPU intensive apps,
every thing seemed great, and very quick.  That is untill I ran netscape,
then the machine crashed (yes crashed!) hard.  I can't restart it with the
good old <ctl><alt><del>, I have to use the hardware rest switch, and then
I found out that other graphic intens apps did the same thing (Gimp,
Eterm, etc).  It does the same thing in Win95 (I now 95 dies often, but
most of the time you can reset it with the <ctl><alt><del>), and I am now
completly clue less what to do next.

What I have done:
I got mad, thought it was a HW problem, and sense the other stuff I had
from the other machine was running great untill the day I took it apart,
so I sent it all back, and recived new parts, but have all the same
problems.  At this time, I am thinking video may be the problem, but any
suggestions would be greatly appreached, oh, and I am not overclocking
it...
Thanks,

 		-Matt-


kopishke@midcoast.com
http://www.midcoast.com/~kopishke
http://169.244.227.129                   MSAD#40 Home Page
http://169.244.227.129/ss/            MVHS Seed Savers Project
http://169.244.227.129/MVCUG/    Medomak Valley Computer User Group
      +--------------------------------------------------+
      | *To see tomorrow's PC, Look at todays Macintosh* | 
      |*If it says "Windows 95 or better" install Linux!*|
      +--------------------------------------------------+


Reply to: