On Friday 02 March 2007 16:07, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Friday 02 March 2007 19:58, kanenas wrote:
I just killed my 10.0 installation and installed the 32 bit 10.2 in that partition, but I can still compare shtuff between my 10.1 install and the 10.2. ten poin two loses every time...
To make it even simpler: I think that 64 bit 10.2 does have a problem somewhere. This is reinforced by the first new round of memtest, yes it ran for only 3.5 hours, zero errors, yes it will run for another 8-9 later on tonight, but previous experience saiz the memory is good.
Then try Fedora.... or Mandriva... or Debian or Ubuntu...
I have mentioned that I just started playing with the 32 bit 10.2. If that does not perform to my satisfaction, the plan is to go back to the 64 bit 10.1, now we all know how to handle the update issue. In a somewhat parallel course, I have also created a free bsd virtual machine in my vmware. if that works I will make the installation "real", but that is a bit more long range than plan a or plan a1. It is not time to jump off the bridge yet.
Maybe one of them will work better for you. What you are saying has no basis.
Running two operating systems (10.1 and 10.2) on/in the same hardware, one of them crashing, the other one *not* crashing, seems like a good enough basis to me.
No two releases are alike and if they were, no one would bother upgrading to a new release.
Why did you?
I heard good things about 10.2 in this list. The main switch was around last Christmas. I gave myself time to iron out issues, but it seems that something more drastic is in line. I wanted to communicate this to the list, maybe it will be of some help to someone, also I took a wag at what I think is the underlying reason for the less than stellar performance of 10.2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org