"High Plains Thumper" wrote in message
news:47075669$0$963$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org...


http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=441046


I have a new problem now. i have been able to boot into ubuntu three times
now but now i get this error whenever i try booting it:

kernel-panic not syncing VFS: unable to mount root fs on unknown-block
(104,1)



I have the same problem, i have three new HDD's and two different DVD
drives, I've tried all sorts of combinations of the two devices and i still
get this error, i don't know what the hell to do, i got it to load once and
was installing but froze at 64% then after that this error just keeps coming
up, I've downloaded / burned the cd several different times and several
different versions. Same thing soo somebody please help me!





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"High Plains Thumper" wrote in message
news:47075669$0$963$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org...
> Fortunately due to a nym-shifting, cross posting comment spamming troll, I
> had my first peak at Newsgroup microsoft.public.windows.vista.general. It
> appears that things are not well in the Vista camp.
>
> I came across this message:
>
Dumbo. There are some 80 million Vista installations now and there are a
few hundred complaints. So what? You chumps sit around wishing and hoping
that Microsoft will shoot itself in the foot badly enough for somone to want
Linux instead. What a lame strategy! I would think that you could convince
people to use it because it was better rather than cheering whenever any
Vista user has a problem.

At the end of the day, every computer on the shelf at BestBuy and all other
mass merchandising outlets is using Windows Vista and streaming out the door
at a rate of 200 million per year. Meanwhile you guys sit around telling
one another how great you are and how anyone who doesn't think so is being
paid to say otherwise.

Gordon Glover wrote:
> "High Plains Thumper" wrote...
>
>> Message-ID:
>> <3E2476BB-5893-4FAB-8D0A-CA01B1F10DA5@microsoft.com>
>>
>> [quote] Recently I have gotten two common stop screen
>> errors:
>>
>> STOP: 0x0000007F (0x00000008, 0x824570c0, 0x00000000,
>> 0x00000000)
>> STOP: 0x0000007F (0x00000008, 0x80157000, 0x00000000,
>> 0x00000000)
>>
>> I use Windows Vista Home Premium. After turning on my
>> computer, entering my password, about 30 seconds in (on my
>> desktop) the computer restarts, and there is one of the
>> above stop errors. I'm typing this using Safe Mode (with
>> Networking). I've already used Memtest and went through 3
>> passes without any errors.



>> My, my, my, another unhappy camper. OTOH, I am a happy
>> camper with Ubuntu.
>
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=441046
>
> I have a new problem now. i have been able to boot into ubuntu
> three times now but now i get this error whenever i try
> booting it:
>
> kernel-panic not syncing VFS: unable to mount root fs on
> unknown-block (104,1)

Sounds like it may be a bonafide hardware problem. I doubt a
Firefox plugin would cause that type of hardware problem.

However, there was an earlier problem with local volume managers
(LVM)'s, which is not a standard Linux configuration for most users:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...nux-kernel-70/
kernel-panic-not-syncing-vfs-unable-to-mount-root-fs-on-
unknown-block00-458751/

or http://tinyurl.com/3x3enm

06-30-2006, 01:55 PM #15

I solved my problem (with a little help from a friend)!
Three things I had to compile into the kernel for it to work w/o
the above error:

Device Drivers->Multi-device support (RAID and LVM)
Device Drivers->Multi-device support (RAID and LVM)->Device
mapper support
Device Drivers->Block devices->RAM disk support->Initial RAM disk
(initrd) support

@ silmaril8n: I can see that all of the above are Y in the 2.6.13
kernel, but the two LVM options that you need in order to get rid
of the above error, are not set in the config file for 2.6.17.
Try Setting them to Y.

The beauty of Linux is that it has better error detecting
facilities, IMHO. This regards my dual boot older system, a 1.7
GHz Intel Celeron system. In Windows XP, my thumb drive got
screwed up a couple times for some unknown reason. Only way to
fix was reformat the thumb drive.

Whilst booting into Debian Sarge, I found that the hardware USB
port I was plugging into was malfunctioning. Linux detected the
errors immediately.

Oh, and why again a nym-shift, AKA

1st Lt Jean Poole
Barb Dwyer
Capt. James Pike
Capt. Morgan
Captain Commando
Colonel Ichabod Conk
Cpl. Kronk
Dr Gang Green
Dr. Disco
Dr. Fafoofnik
Dr. Feelgood
Dr. GroundAxe
Dr. Hungwell
Dr. Hurt
Dr. Livingston
Dr. McGillicudy
Dr. Pain
Dr. Seymour Butts
Dr. Shlongwell
Dr. Shlongwell (aka your Boss)
Dr. Smooth
Dr. Zhivago
Lintard Luser
Lt. Stardust
Mr. X
Ms. Polly Ester
Ofc. Michael Clayton
rafael (note the nym-thief couldn't even leave poor Rafael alone)
Sgt. Wannacker
SgtMajor Gansevoort
Sir Michael Clayton?

--
HPT

High Plains Thumper wrote:

> Fortunately due to a nym-shifting, cross posting comment spamming troll, I
> had my first peak at Newsgroup microsoft.public.windows.vista.general. It
> appears that things are not well in the Vista camp.
>
> I came across this message:
>
> From: =?Utf-8?B?VG9ueQ==?=
> Subject: BSOD: 0x0000007F ... Help!
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 01:55:01 -0700
> Message-ID: <3E2476BB-5893-4FAB-8D0A-CA01B1F10DA5@microsoft.com>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
>
>

> Recently I have gotten two common stop screen errors:
>
> STOP: 0x0000007F (0x00000008, 0x824570c0, 0x00000000, 0x00000000)
> STOP: 0x0000007F (0x00000008, 0x80157000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000)
>
> I use Windows Vista Home Premium. After turning on my computer, entering
> my password, about 30 seconds in (on my desktop) the computer restarts,
> and there is one of the above stop errors. I'm typing this using Safe Mode
> (with Networking). I've already used Memtest and went through 3 passes
> without any errors.
>
> Here are my computer specs:
>
> Gigabyte GA-M57SLI-S4 Motherboard AMD AM2 NForce 2PCIEX16 4DDR2 AUDIO GLN
> 1394
>
> AMD Athlon 64 Dual Core 5200+ AM2 CPU
>
> 2x Hyundai 1GB DDR2 RAM 533MHZ PC4300
>
> XFX Geforce 7600GT Graphics Card
>
> Any help is appreciated.
>

>
> My, my, my, another unhappy camper. OTOH, I am a happy camper with
> Ubuntu.


What was the colour code? Was it 0x0000FF ?

[snips]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:45:35 +0900, High Plains Thumper wrote:

>> I can't make CDs useable in my other computer and I can't install my
>> favourite programs and I can't view my videos because they are in MOV
>> format.
>
> I have had no problems with K3B, works first time, every time.

Except on flaky media or flaky drives. Been bit by both. When the rest
is functional, though, K3B works wonderfully well - and when the rest
ain't functional, ain't nuthin' else gonna work, anyhow.

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
>>> I can't make CDs useable in my other computer and I can't
>>> install my favourite programs and I can't view my videos
>>> because they are in MOV format.
>>
>> I have had no problems with K3B, works first time, every
>> time.
>
> Except on flaky media or flaky drives. Been bit by both.
> When the rest is functional, though, K3B works wonderfully
> well - and when the rest ain't functional, ain't nuthin' else
> gonna work, anyhow.

Regarding flaky drives, I have learned to buy brand name drives.
Names like Verbatim, Acer, off-shoots have only lasted about a
year if I am lucky. I have had better luck with NEC, Sony, HP,
etc. Apparently the cheaper brands' burning LED goes bad with time.

Regarding flaky media, I have learned to manually adjust my burns
to spec's below the advertised. If it says it is 40X, I burn at
half that. At any rate, I have also had my share of bad burns
with Nero Light (Windows version) that came bundled with the
drives. I have also used their backup function, problem is it
didn't back up all my files like it said it did (buggy software).
K3B was more like their full blown version, well featured.

--
HPT

amicus_curious wrote:

>Dumbo.

Lying rat.

>There are some 80 million Vista installations now and there are a
>few hundred complaints.

Oh is that all? Or are you a lying POS?

chrisv wrote:

> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>Dumbo.
>
> Lying rat.
>
>>There are some 80 million Vista installations now and there are a
>>few hundred complaints.
>
> Oh is that all? Or are you a lying POS?

billwg has it the wrong way round. What he *actually* meant was:
"There are a few hundred Vista installations now and there are
80 million complaints." See? :-)

--
Operating systems:
FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4
Testing: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
(K)Ubuntu 7.04, Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" beta

[snips]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:17:03 +0900, High Plains Thumper wrote:

> Regarding flaky drives, I have learned to buy brand name drives.
> Names like Verbatim, Acer, off-shoots have only lasted about a
> year if I am lucky. I have had better luck with NEC, Sony, HP,
> etc. Apparently the cheaper brands' burning LED goes bad with time.

My first one to die was HP.

Still, nothing lasts forever, and for what I paid for it and the time it
did last, I'm not really complaining.

> Regarding flaky media, I have learned to manually adjust my burns to
> spec's below the advertised. If it says it is 40X, I burn at half that.

Yeah, well if you watch the actual burn rate, you'll find they hardly ever
burn at full speed anyhow. Knocking 'em back doesn't really hurt
anything, and can help quite a bit, particularly on cheap media.

> At any rate, I have also had my share of bad burns with Nero Light
> (Windows version) that came bundled with the drives. I have also used
> their backup function, problem is it didn't back up all my files like it
> said it did (buggy software).
> K3B was more like their full blown version, well featured.

A very nice app, K3B.

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:51:22 -0500, chrisv wrote:


>amicus_curious wrote:

>>Dumbo.

>Lying rat.

>>There are some 80 million Vista installations now and there are a
>>few hundred complaints.

>Oh is that all? Or are you a lying POS?

Vista on a 512MB is unuseable. Put every single 512MB vista system on the
complaint ledger. Put every single 1GB vista system with norton internet
security there too. Vista needs 2-4GB before it starts to be useable.

Verily I say unto thee, that AZ Nomad spake thusly:

> Vista on a 512MB is unuseable. Put every single 512MB vista system
> on the complaint ledger. Put every single 1GB vista system with
> norton internet security there too. Vista needs 2-4GB before it
> starts to be useable.

Unfortunately Vista-32 can only address a maximum of 3GB, so 4GB
wouldn't be much help I'm afraid. Running Vista-64 /would/ help the
memory issue, but then Vista has enough compatability problems as it is
with the /32 bit/ version. Run the 64 bit version, and you might as well
throw your shiny new Vista boxen in the dumpster. In fact you might be
inclined to do that with even the 32 bit version anyway.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "OOXML is a superb standard"
| - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
02:17:00 up 61 days, 1:11, 3 users, load average: 1.90, 1.73, 1.45

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:18:03 +0100, [H]omer wrote:


>Verily I say unto thee, that AZ Nomad spake thusly:

>> Vista on a 512MB is unuseable. Put every single 512MB vista system
>> on the complaint ledger. Put every single 1GB vista system with
>> norton internet security there too. Vista needs 2-4GB before it
>> starts to be useable.

>Unfortunately Vista-32 can only address a maximum of 3GB, so 4GB
>wouldn't be much help I'm afraid. Running Vista-64 /would/ help the
>memory issue, but then Vista has enough compatability problems as it is
>with the /32 bit/ version. Run the 64 bit version, and you might as well
>throw your shiny new Vista boxen in the dumpster. In fact you might be
>inclined to do that with even the 32 bit version anyway.

I didn't think it was possible to make 5 ghz of CPU and a gig of ram run
dog slow, but I also knew that microsoft had special talent for doing just that
every step of the way since when the 286 was considered fast.

Just think: in less than fifteen years we'll have terahertz machines and
if microsoft is still around, they'll make those machines too slow to use.

AZ Nomad wrote:
>
> Vista on a 512MB is unuseable. Put every single 512MB vista system
> on the complaint ledger. Put every single 1GB vista system with
> norton internet security there too. Vista needs 2-4GB before it
> starts to be useable.


Which edition of Vista are you running? How much RAM was enough for your
needs?

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 05:16:28 -0500, Ryan Paige wrote:


>AZ Nomad wrote:
>>
>> Vista on a 512MB is unuseable. Put every single 512MB vista system
>> on the complaint ledger. Put every single 1GB vista system with
>> norton internet security there too. Vista needs 2-4GB before it
>> starts to be useable.


>Which edition of Vista are you running? How much RAM was enough for your
>needs?

It doesn't matter what edition. No version of vista runs worth a ****
in 512M of ram.

My experiences have been mostly with the "Home Basic" and "Home Premium". I
can't imagine any of the other editions doing any better.

If history is any guide, the 2G minimum that exists nowadays won't hold.
A few service packs later and vista will need 4-8G.

After takin' a swig o' grog, AZ Nomad belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> It doesn't matter what edition. No version of vista runs worth a ****
> in 512M of ram.
>
> My experiences have been mostly with the "Home Basic" and "Home Premium". I
> can't imagine any of the other editions doing any better.
>
> If history is any guide, the 2G minimum that exists nowadays won't hold.
> A few service packs later and vista will need 4-8G.

At TigerDirect, the vendor OCX is offering a rebate on slower versions
of their 2x2Gb (4 Gb) dual-channel RAM.

Their literature aims it at "Vista Upgraders".

Of course, it would be a nice thing for your 64-bit Linux system, too
.

--
Vista Excels!

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> Regarding flaky media, I have learned to manually adjust my
>> burns to spec's below the advertised. If it says it is 40X,
>> I burn at half that.
>
> Yeah, well if you watch the actual burn rate, you'll find they
> hardly ever burn at full speed anyhow. Knocking 'em back
> doesn't really hurt anything, and can help quite a bit,
> particularly on cheap media.

I found some really cheap media with the Office Depot label. It
was marked 10x and it would only burn at speeds at or less than
10x. However, it was very good in that it was cheap and produced
decent disks.

>> At any rate, I have also had my share of bad burns with Nero
>> Light (Windows version) that came bundled with the drives.
>> I have also used their backup function, problem is it didn't
>> back up all my files like it said it did (buggy software).
>> K3B was more like their full blown version, well featured.
>
> A very nice app, K3B.

Yes, it really surprised me, very user friendly and very
comparable. Here is something interesting, I have had poor burns
on brand name labels like HP. When I dropped the speed a little,
then it successfully burned. Only thing is the Lightscribe stuff
costs more, one does not like throwing away media for a bad burn.

--
HPT

After takin' a swig o' grog, [H]omer belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
>
>> At TigerDirect, the vendor OCX is offering a rebate on slower versions
>> of their 2x2Gb (4 Gb) dual-channel RAM.
>>
>> Their literature aims it at "Vista Upgraders".
>
> Does their literature also state that 1GB of that 4GB will be unusable?

No it does not.

>> Of course, it would be a nice thing for your 64-bit Linux system, too
>> .
>
> Well, yeah. We actually get to use all of it.

Indeed.

Like the music industry, the desktop computer industry is severely
broken.

--
Tux rox!

After takin' a swig o' grog, HighPlainsThumper belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> I found some really cheap media with the Office Depot label. It
> was marked 10x and it would only burn at speeds at or less than
> 10x. However, it was very good in that it was cheap and produced
> decent disks.

I bought a Lite-On (brand name Ativa, an Office Depot label) drive for
my 64-bit system, and found that it just screams through an ISO burn at
about 40x.

Surprised me the first time I saw it. Here's the command line:

wodim -v dev=/dev/cdrw -tao -data $ISOBASE

>> A very nice app, K3B.
>
> Yes, it really surprised me, very user friendly and very
> comparable. Here is something interesting, I have had poor burns
> on brand name labels like HP. When I dropped the speed a little,
> then it successfully burned.

The speeds I got were with HP CDs.

--
Tux rox!

HighPlainsThumper wrote:
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding flaky media, I have learned to manually adjust my
>>> burns to spec's below the advertised. If it says it is 40X,
>>> I burn at half that.
>>
>> Yeah, well if you watch the actual burn rate, you'll find they
>> hardly ever burn at full speed anyhow. Knocking 'em back
>> doesn't really hurt anything, and can help quite a bit,
>> particularly on cheap media.
>
> I found some really cheap media with the Office Depot label. It
> was marked 10x and it would only burn at speeds at or less than
> 10x. However, it was very good in that it was cheap and produced
> decent disks.
>


Thank you. I've been looking high and low for 10x CD-R media. Did you
purchase it recently ?