 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/23/2012 13:12, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> PSU. I've never seen this before... what the heck?
You have something plugged in that claims it's bootable but isn't. This
happens (for example) if I leave my kindle or cell phone plugged into the
usb when I reboot. By cycling the PSU, you're removing power from whatever
is plugged in, and it's not ready to say "yes I'm bootable" before the BIOS
gets past that point.
HTH!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If a 3rd party driver won't install, I'm not so sure that's a problem
>> with the OS.
> You get that *way* too often in Windows imho. lol
Well, I think it's just the case that since there's more software for
Windows, more of it is naff.
Some people tell you that open source software is much higher quality.
And then you have things like KLogic, which randomly crashes for no
apparent reason, and /gives the wrong answer/ in some of the
simulations, unless you save and then reload the file... So, yeah, naff
software exists in the open source world too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/02/2012 03:35 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 13:12, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> PSU. I've never seen this before... what the heck?
>
> You have something plugged in that claims it's bootable but isn't. This
> happens (for example) if I leave my kindle or cell phone plugged into
> the usb when I reboot. By cycling the PSU, you're removing power from
> whatever is plugged in, and it's not ready to say "yes I'm bootable"
> before the BIOS gets past that point.
>
> HTH!
I can't imagine my printer, MIDI interface or soundcard claiming to be
bootable. But then, those are the only things I've added, so it must be
one of them.
Since this problem has never happened before, I can only imagine it's
some sort of BIOS glitch. Who knows, perhaps there's an update for that?
Otherwise, I'm going to have to try removing devices until I figure out
what's causing it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> > I don't see what someone would use a printer for. It just sounds so
> > obsolete nowadays, in the same way as floppy disks or RS-232 ports.
> I am astounded that you would think that paper is obsolete.
> I mean, sure, people have been /talking/ about going paperless for
> decades. And yet... we're still surrounded by paper. Heck, it's been
> possible to read documents on a computer since before I was even born,
> and yet book shops still sell thousands of paper books per day. Hell,
> today we even have specialised e-readers, devices which exist solely for
> the purpose of reading stuff. And yet, paper books are still vastly more
> popular. Because, you know what? Paper is more convenient than any
> computer screen.
You still didn't answer my question...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.02.2012 13:11, schrieb Warp:
>> I mean, sure, people have been /talking/ about going paperless for
>> decades. And yet... we're still surrounded by paper. Heck, it's been
>> possible to read documents on a computer since before I was even born,
>> and yet book shops still sell thousands of paper books per day. Hell,
>> today we even have specialised e-readers, devices which exist solely for
>> the purpose of reading stuff. And yet, paper books are still vastly more
>> popular. Because, you know what? Paper is more convenient than any
>> computer screen.
>
> You still didn't answer my question...
Oh, did he not? Do you really need him to rephrase that into something
more personal, say, "I find paper more convenient than any computer screen"?
C'mon, Warp. You're just being a brick-head again right now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/24/2012 2:00 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> If a 3rd party driver won't install, I'm not so sure that's a problem
>>> with the OS.
>
>> You get that *way* too often in Windows imho. lol
>
> Well, I think it's just the case that since there's more software for
> Windows, more of it is naff.
>
> Some people tell you that open source software is much higher quality.
> And then you have things like KLogic, which randomly crashes for no
> apparent reason, and /gives the wrong answer/ in some of the
> simulations, unless you save and then reload the file... So, yeah, naff
> software exists in the open source world too.
True, but, at least in principle, you can figure out what the fuck went
wrong, and submit a fix for it. MS and all their 3rd party cronies (and
yes, slapping "Designed for XP/Vista/Windows 7" on the box makes you a
crony), quite often won't even acknowledge that some problem even exist,
or that your could possibly be having one, never mind fix it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Some people tell you that open source software is much higher quality.
>> And then you have things like KLogic, which randomly crashes for no
>> apparent reason, and /gives the wrong answer/ in some of the
>> simulations, unless you save and then reload the file... So, yeah, naff
>> software exists in the open source world too.
> True, but, at least in principle, you can figure out what the fuck went
> wrong, and submit a fix for it.
Yes - but only if you understand C and/or C++. :-P
> MS and all their 3rd party cronies (and
> yes, slapping "Designed for XP/Vista/Windows 7" on the box makes you a
> crony), quite often won't even acknowledge that some problem even exist,
> or that your could possibly be having one, never mind fix it.
Whereas if you submit a bug to an open source project (assuming there is
a bug tracker or even a way to /contact/ the developers), they will
either mark it as WONTFIX or reply with "patches welcome".
This /also/ does not fix the problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> MS and all their 3rd party cronies (and
>> yes, slapping "Designed for XP/Vista/Windows 7" on the box makes you a
>> crony), quite often won't even acknowledge that some problem even exist,
>> or that your could possibly be having one, never mind fix it.
>
> Whereas if you submit a bug to an open source project (assuming there is
> a bug tracker or even a way to /contact/ the developers), they will
> either mark it as WONTFIX or reply with "patches welcome".
>
> This /also/ does not fix the problem.
Exhibit A: Firefox (in fact, the Gecko renderer in the old Mozilla Suite
before Firefox even had that name) has an 11 year old bug about
character escaping not working in XML files. The developers first
claimed that this isn't a bug, it's what the W3C spec requires. Then
they just flatly said that they wouldn't fix it. The bug 29 duplicate
tickets, and the main ticket has 129 comments, most of them being "OMG,
TEN YEARS and you haven't fixed this yet? WTF? I'm using Opera now!!"
Yeah, open source development totally works. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/25/2012 3:43 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> MS and all their 3rd party cronies (and
>>> yes, slapping "Designed for XP/Vista/Windows 7" on the box makes you a
>>> crony), quite often won't even acknowledge that some problem even exist,
>>> or that your could possibly be having one, never mind fix it.
>>
>> Whereas if you submit a bug to an open source project (assuming there is
>> a bug tracker or even a way to /contact/ the developers), they will
>> either mark it as WONTFIX or reply with "patches welcome".
>>
>> This /also/ does not fix the problem.
>
> Exhibit A: Firefox (in fact, the Gecko renderer in the old Mozilla Suite
> before Firefox even had that name) has an 11 year old bug about
> character escaping not working in XML files. The developers first
> claimed that this isn't a bug, it's what the W3C spec requires. Then
> they just flatly said that they wouldn't fix it. The bug 29 duplicate
> tickets, and the main ticket has 129 comments, most of them being "OMG,
> TEN YEARS and you haven't fixed this yet? WTF? I'm using Opera now!!"
>
> Yeah, open source development totally works. :-P
Snort.. Well.. Even in opensource, sometimes the bugs either end up "low
priority", or they become so ensconced in how the thing works that
fixing them actually breaks the product. Not an excuse, but its a better
one than, "We refuse to even believe that our users notice how shitty
the product is, so here are 8,000 non-bugs we won't be fixing." lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Exhibit A: Firefox (in fact, the Gecko renderer in the old Mozilla Suite
>> before Firefox even had that name) has an 11 year old bug about
>> character escaping not working in XML files. The developers first
>> claimed that this isn't a bug, it's what the W3C spec requires. Then
>> they just flatly said that they wouldn't fix it. The bug 29 duplicate
>> tickets, and the main ticket has 129 comments, most of them being "OMG,
>> TEN YEARS and you haven't fixed this yet? WTF? I'm using Opera now!!"
>>
>> Yeah, open source development totally works. :-P
> Snort.. Well.. Even in opensource, sometimes the bugs either end up "low
> priority", or they become so ensconced in how the thing works that
> fixing them actually breaks the product. Not an excuse, but its a better
> one than, "We refuse to even believe that our users notice how shitty
> the product is, so here are 8,000 non-bugs we won't be fixing." lol
With something like GHC, where there are approximately 5 developers
world-wide, you can kind of understand there being a bazillion
outstanding bugs all set to very low priority. But this is Firefox we're
talking about, the so-called premier open source web browser. You'd
think they have a few developers to go around...
But hey, I suppose that's better than "this is fixed in the next release
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
