Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.computers > #71467 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-11-28 21:55 +1000 |
| Last post | 2024-12-16 16:39 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 43 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.computers
Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-11-28 21:55 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-11-29 07:27 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-11-29 10:54 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-11-30 17:53 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-01 06:43 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-12-02 21:31 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-09 19:31 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-12-09 19:33 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2024-12-10 00:22 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-12-10 20:36 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2024-12-10 22:05 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-11 00:38 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-11 07:20 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-18 09:43 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-18 09:59 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-12-18 11:32 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-19 13:18 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-12-19 13:34 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-19 17:57 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-19 18:22 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-19 20:34 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-20 12:26 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-21 07:34 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-21 12:30 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-21 14:36 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-21 18:18 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-21 22:32 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-22 07:55 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-23 11:14 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-12-23 16:48 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-23 12:12 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-12-23 16:52 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine ng <ng@ng.com> - 2024-12-29 14:33 +0000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine ng <ng@ng.com> - 2025-01-03 03:43 +0000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine MightyMouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2025-01-05 18:43 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine MightyMouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2025-01-05 18:43 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-10 08:05 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-10 10:23 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-11 07:28 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-12-12 21:41 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2024-12-13 07:08 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-13 07:19 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-12-16 16:39 +1000
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-19 20:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lsi7lmFpcpmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71502 |
Mighty Mouse wrote: > Mighty Mouse wrote: >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>>> how can I check? and if there is one how do I get rid of it? >>>>> I'm not sure if that can be done reliably, but I wouldn't jump to >>>>> conclusions, especially if the trouble only started after you >>>>> upgraded the CPU. >>>>> >>>>>> if it's not a boot virus what else could be the problem? >>>>> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >>>>> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >>>>> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. >>>> I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, >>>> and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that >>>> ram was >>>> faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor >>>> memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you >>>> can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure >>>> this is >>>> not supposed to happen. >>> Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a >>> hardware problem. >>> >>>> one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a >>>> 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new >>>> one. >>>> it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be >>>> that >>>> the motherboard is faulty? >>> Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving >>> the RAM sticks about. >> >> ok > > the RAM was running as dual channel in A2/B2 slots. I'll put it in > A1/B1 and run memtest again. btw.. memtest is now in the BIOS as a > boot option, and I can't see anyway to remove it. ? nup. I still had the USB plugged in at the rear, and didn't notice > >> >>> It might also be that the CPU wasn't aligned >>> quite right when you replaced it. >> >> no, i installed it very carefully. >> >>> >>>>>> I've tried windows repair, and it didn't fix it. >>>>> Did you try Safe Mode (assuming that's still around in Win10)? >>>> no, but I will. stupid M$ has made it more difficult to get into safe >>>> mode. it used to be that you just pressed F8 at boot. >>> With Memtest86 failing then that means the problem isn't in Windows >>> anyway. >>> >> >> you're right. I will put the old CPU back, and reinstall windows. if >> the problem is still extant I'll junk this motherboard. >> > > -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 12:26 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lsjvdpF3g6vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71502 |
Mighty Mouse wrote: > Mighty Mouse wrote: >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>>> how can I check? and if there is one how do I get rid of it? >>>>> I'm not sure if that can be done reliably, but I wouldn't jump to >>>>> conclusions, especially if the trouble only started after you >>>>> upgraded the CPU. >>>>> >>>>>> if it's not a boot virus what else could be the problem? >>>>> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >>>>> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >>>>> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. >>>> I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, >>>> and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that >>>> ram was >>>> faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor >>>> memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you >>>> can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure >>>> this is >>>> not supposed to happen. >>> Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a >>> hardware problem. >>> >>>> one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a >>>> 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new >>>> one. >>>> it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be >>>> that >>>> the motherboard is faulty? >>> Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving >>> the RAM sticks about. >> >> ok > > the RAM was running as dual channel in A2/B2 slots. I'll put it in > A1/B1 and run memtest again. I swapped the memory sockets, and reinstalled windows, but it's just the same. do you think it's a motherboard fault? or could it be CPU related? could a CPU fault cause memtest to fail? > >> >>> It might also be that the CPU wasn't aligned >>> quite right when you replaced it. >> >> no, i installed it very carefully. >> >>> >>>>>> I've tried windows repair, and it didn't fix it. >>>>> Did you try Safe Mode (assuming that's still around in Win10)? >>>> no, but I will. stupid M$ has made it more difficult to get into safe >>>> mode. it used to be that you just pressed F8 at boot. >>> With Memtest86 failing then that means the problem isn't in Windows >>> anyway. >>> >> >> you're right. I will put the old CPU back, and reinstall windows. if >> the problem is still extant I'll junk this motherboard. >> -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 07:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6765e2d6@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71505 |
Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: > Mighty Mouse wrote: >> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >>>>>> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >>>>>> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. >>>>> I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, >>>>> and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that >>>>> ram was >>>>> faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor >>>>> memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you >>>>> can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure >>>>> this is >>>>> not supposed to happen. >>>> Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a >>>> hardware problem. >>>> >>>>> one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a >>>>> 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new >>>>> one. >>>>> it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be >>>>> that >>>>> the motherboard is faulty? >>>> Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving >>>> the RAM sticks about. >>> >>> ok >> >> the RAM was running as dual channel in A2/B2 slots. I'll put it in >> A1/B1 and run memtest again. > > I swapped the memory sockets, and reinstalled windows, but it's just the > same. Reinstalling Windows was pointless, just run Memtest86 and when it completes a pass or two you know your problem is fixed. > do you think it's a motherboard fault? or could it be CPU related? > could a CPU fault cause memtest to fail? Of course. The CPU has to talk to the RAM, so if it can't do that right then either could be at fault (as well as the motherboard). If you've now tried different RAM sticks and different RAM slots, swapping back the old CPU would be the next test, and failing that then the motherboard must be broken. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 12:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lsmk18Fgg3eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71507 |
Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >>>>>>> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >>>>>>> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. >>>>>> I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, >>>>>> and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that >>>>>> ram was >>>>>> faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor >>>>>> memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you >>>>>> can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure >>>>>> this is >>>>>> not supposed to happen. >>>>> Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a >>>>> hardware problem. >>>>> >>>>>> one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a >>>>>> 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new >>>>>> one. >>>>>> it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be >>>>>> that >>>>>> the motherboard is faulty? >>>>> Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving >>>>> the RAM sticks about. >>>> ok >>> the RAM was running as dual channel in A2/B2 slots. I'll put it in >>> A1/B1 and run memtest again. >> I swapped the memory sockets, and reinstalled windows, but it's just the >> same. > Reinstalling Windows was pointless, it's just that if windows installs and runs I know the problem is fixed, since windows not loading was the problem. > just run Memtest86 and when it > completes a pass or two you know your problem is fixed. Ok > >> do you think it's a motherboard fault? or could it be CPU related? >> could a CPU fault cause memtest to fail? > Of course. The CPU has to talk to the RAM, so if it can't do that > right then either could be at fault (as well as the motherboard). > If you've now tried different RAM sticks and different RAM slots, > swapping back the old CPU would be the next test, and failing that > then the motherboard must be broken. > yep. that's the final test. -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 14:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <676645e2@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71509 |
Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >>>>>>>> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >>>>>>>> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. >>>>>>> I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, >>>>>>> and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that >>>>>>> ram was >>>>>>> faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor >>>>>>> memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you >>>>>>> can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure >>>>>>> this is >>>>>>> not supposed to happen. >>>>>> Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a >>>>>> hardware problem. >>>>>> >>>>>>> one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a >>>>>>> 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new >>>>>>> one. >>>>>>> it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> the motherboard is faulty? >>>>>> Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving >>>>>> the RAM sticks about. >>>>> ok >>>> the RAM was running as dual channel in A2/B2 slots. I'll put it in >>>> A1/B1 and run memtest again. >>> I swapped the memory sockets, and reinstalled windows, but it's just the >>> same. >> Reinstalling Windows was pointless, > > it's just that if windows installs and runs I know the problem is fixed, > since windows not loading was the problem. Not really, if there's still an issue in a higher memory region you might find it crashes eg. when you load lots of tabs in a Web browser and use up more RAM. Like Linux could crash too if you run a memory-hungry program, even though it boots up OK because it's using less RAM as a baseline. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 18:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lsn8eiFjfq2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71511 |
Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>>> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>>> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >>>>>>>>> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >>>>>>>>> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. >>>>>>>> I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, >>>>>>>> and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that >>>>>>>> ram was >>>>>>>> faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor >>>>>>>> memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you >>>>>>>> can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure >>>>>>>> this is >>>>>>>> not supposed to happen. >>>>>>> Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a >>>>>>> hardware problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a >>>>>>>> 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new >>>>>>>> one. >>>>>>>> it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> the motherboard is faulty? >>>>>>> Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving >>>>>>> the RAM sticks about. >>>>>> ok >>>>> the RAM was running as dual channel in A2/B2 slots. I'll put it in >>>>> A1/B1 and run memtest again. >>>> I swapped the memory sockets, and reinstalled windows, but it's just the >>>> same. >>> Reinstalling Windows was pointless, >> it's just that if windows installs and runs I know the problem is fixed, >> since windows not loading was the problem. > Not really, if there's still an issue in a higher memory region you > might find it crashes eg. when you load lots of tabs in a Web > browser and use up more RAM. Like Linux could crash too if you run > a memory-hungry program, even though it boots up OK because it's > using less RAM as a baseline. > I recall Linux did crash on this machine when it was doing a lot of updates -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 22:32 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lsnnagFlqgdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71509 |
Mighty Mouse wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >>>>>>>> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >>>>>>>> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. >>>>>>> I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran >>>>>>> memtest, >>>>>>> and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that >>>>>>> ram was >>>>>>> faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor >>>>>>> memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off >>>>>>> again! you >>>>>>> can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure >>>>>>> this is >>>>>>> not supposed to happen. >>>>>> Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a >>>>>> hardware problem. >>>>>> >>>>>>> one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was >>>>>>> emitting a >>>>>>> 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new >>>>>>> one. >>>>>>> it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> the motherboard is faulty? >>>>>> Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving >>>>>> the RAM sticks about. >>>>> ok >>>> the RAM was running as dual channel in A2/B2 slots. I'll put it in >>>> A1/B1 and run memtest again. >>> I swapped the memory sockets, and reinstalled windows, but it's just >>> the >>> same. >> Reinstalling Windows was pointless, > > it's just that if windows installs and runs I know the problem is > fixed, since windows not loading was the problem. > >> just run Memtest86 and when it >> completes a pass or two you know your problem is fixed. > > Ok > >> >>> do you think it's a motherboard fault? or could it be CPU related? >>> could a CPU fault cause memtest to fail? >> Of course. The CPU has to talk to the RAM, so if it can't do that >> right then either could be at fault (as well as the motherboard). >> If you've now tried different RAM sticks and different RAM slots, >> swapping back the old CPU would be the next test, and failing that >> then the motherboard must be broken. >> > > yep. that's the final test. > success at last! it was the CPU. put the old one back and it's working fine. many thanks for your help with this! :) -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 07:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <67673963@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71518 |
Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: > Mighty Mouse wrote: >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> If you've now tried different RAM sticks and different RAM slots, >>> swapping back the old CPU would be the next test, and failing that >>> then the motherboard must be broken. >> >> yep. that's the final test. > > success at last! it was the CPU. put the old one back and it's working > fine. many thanks for your help with this! :) That's good. It could be that there was just a poor connection on one of the address signal contacts when you inserted the new CPU before. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 11:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lsrob7Fb2eqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71520 |
Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> If you've now tried different RAM sticks and different RAM slots, >>>> swapping back the old CPU would be the next test, and failing that >>>> then the motherboard must be broken. >>> yep. that's the final test. >> success at last! it was the CPU. put the old one back and it's working >> fine. many thanks for your help with this! :) > That's good. It could be that there was just a poor connection on > one of the address signal contacts when you inserted the new CPU > before. > the CPU has pins that go into holes in the CPU socket, and a lever locks it in place. so I don't see how it would be possible to have it incorrectly inserted. and the heatsink exerts a lot of pressure on it. -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 16:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <676907cb@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71540 |
Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> If you've now tried different RAM sticks and different RAM slots, >>>>> swapping back the old CPU would be the next test, and failing that >>>>> then the motherboard must be broken. >>>> yep. that's the final test. >>> success at last! it was the CPU. put the old one back and it's working >>> fine. many thanks for your help with this! :) >> That's good. It could be that there was just a poor connection on >> one of the address signal contacts when you inserted the new CPU >> before. > > ?the CPU has pins that go into holes in the CPU socket, and a lever > locks it in place. so I don't see how it would be possible to have it > incorrectly inserted. and the heatsink exerts a lot of pressure on it. A pin could have missed the hole and been bent over flat, although it can be pretty hard to bend it back without snapping it off if that's the case. Or maybe some dirt/gunk just fell in the socket. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 12:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lsrrorFbh4bU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71507 |
Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >>>>>>> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >>>>>>> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. >>>>>> I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, >>>>>> and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that >>>>>> ram was >>>>>> faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor >>>>>> memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you >>>>>> can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure >>>>>> this is >>>>>> not supposed to happen. >>>>> Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a >>>>> hardware problem. >>>>> >>>>>> one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a >>>>>> 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new >>>>>> one. >>>>>> it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be >>>>>> that >>>>>> the motherboard is faulty? >>>>> Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving >>>>> the RAM sticks about. >>>> ok >>> the RAM was running as dual channel in A2/B2 slots. I'll put it in >>> A1/B1 and run memtest again. >> I swapped the memory sockets, and reinstalled windows, but it's just the >> same. > Reinstalling Windows was pointless, just run Memtest86 and when it > completes a pass or two you know your problem is fixed. does memtest terminate with a final screen of results, so I can have it running without monitoring it? > >> do you think it's a motherboard fault? or could it be CPU related? >> could a CPU fault cause memtest to fail? > Of course. The CPU has to talk to the RAM, so if it can't do that > right then either could be at fault (as well as the motherboard). > If you've now tried different RAM sticks and different RAM slots, > swapping back the old CPU would be the next test, and failing that > then the motherboard must be broken. > -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 16:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <67690898@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71545 |
Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>> Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >>>>>>>> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >>>>>>>> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. >>>>>>> I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, >>>>>>> and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that >>>>>>> ram was >>>>>>> faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor >>>>>>> memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you >>>>>>> can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure >>>>>>> this is >>>>>>> not supposed to happen. >>>>>> Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a >>>>>> hardware problem. >>>>>> >>>>>>> one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a >>>>>>> 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new >>>>>>> one. >>>>>>> it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> the motherboard is faulty? >>>>>> Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving >>>>>> the RAM sticks about. >>>>> ok >>>> the RAM was running as dual channel in A2/B2 slots. I'll put it in >>>> A1/B1 and run memtest again. >>> I swapped the memory sockets, and reinstalled windows, but it's just the >>> same. >> Reinstalling Windows was pointless, just run Memtest86 and when it >> completes a pass or two you know your problem is fixed. > > does memtest terminate with a final screen of results, so I can have it > running without monitoring it? It lists the results of each pass under the area showing the current test actions and stats at the top of the screen. There's also a count of how many tests passed/failed. It doesn't stop but it's clear when it's finished a full test and started again. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ng <ng@ng.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-29 14:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkrmk1$10v3h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71545 |
Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote in news:lsrrorFbh4bU2@mid.individual.net: of results, so I can > have it running without monitoring it? > >> >>> do you think it's a motherboard fault? or could it be CPU >>> related? could a CPU fault cause memtest to fail? >> Of course. The CPU has to talk to the RAM, so if it can't do that >> right then either could be at fault (as well as the motherboard). >> If you've now tried different RAM sticks and different RAM slots, >> swapping back the old CPU would be the next test, and failing >> that then the motherboard must be broken. >> > > Known problem with AM2/3 boards + older Nvidia cards. In those cases you must use Windows 10 not later than 1909 or ltsc-1809.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ng <ng@ng.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 03:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl7mds$3kgo0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71701 |
ng <ng@ng.com> wrote in news:vkrmk1$10v3h$1@dont-email.me: > Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote in > news:lsrrorFbh4bU2@mid.individual.net: > > of results, so I can >> have it running without monitoring it? >> >>> >>>> do you think it's a motherboard fault? or could it be CPU >>>> related? could a CPU fault cause memtest to fail? >>> Of course. The CPU has to talk to the RAM, so if it can't do >>> that right then either could be at fault (as well as the >>> motherboard). If you've now tried different RAM sticks and >>> different RAM slots, swapping back the old CPU would be the next >>> test, and failing that then the motherboard must be broken. >>> >> >> > > Known problem with AM2/3 boards + older Nvidia cards. In those > cases you must use Windows 10 not later than 1909 or ltsc-1809. > For incompatible AM2 + nvidia systems, Here is the last stable version 1909: https://os.click/en/Windows:Windows_10:1909:18363.1621:Multi-Edition:en:x64 Use this tool to prevent upgrades to later builds: https://www.grc.com/incontrol.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MightyMouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 18:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lturhfFugb1U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71703 |
On 3/01/2025 2:43 pm, ng wrote: > ng <ng@ng.com> wrote in news:vkrmk1$10v3h$1@dont-email.me: > >> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote in >> news:lsrrorFbh4bU2@mid.individual.net: >> >> of results, so I can >>> have it running without monitoring it? >>> >>>>> do you think it's a motherboard fault? or could it be CPU >>>>> related? could a CPU fault cause memtest to fail? >>>> Of course. The CPU has to talk to the RAM, so if it can't do >>>> that right then either could be at fault (as well as the >>>> motherboard). If you've now tried different RAM sticks and >>>> different RAM slots, swapping back the old CPU would be the next >>>> test, and failing that then the motherboard must be broken. >>>> >>> >> Known problem with AM2/3 boards + older Nvidia cards. In those >> cases you must use Windows 10 not later than 1909 or ltsc-1809. >> > For incompatible AM2 + nvidia systems, Here is the last stable version 1909: > > https://os.click/en/Windows:Windows_10:1909:18363.1621:Multi-Edition:en:x64 > > > Use this tool to prevent upgrades to later builds: > > https://www.grc.com/incontrol.htm thanks. I file that in case I have any issues. -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MightyMouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 18:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lturg6Fugb1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71701 |
On 30/12/2024 1:33 am, ng wrote: > Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote in > news:lsrrorFbh4bU2@mid.individual.net: > > of results, so I can >> have it running without monitoring it? >> >>>> do you think it's a motherboard fault? or could it be CPU >>>> related? could a CPU fault cause memtest to fail? >>> Of course. The CPU has to talk to the RAM, so if it can't do that >>> right then either could be at fault (as well as the motherboard). >>> If you've now tried different RAM sticks and different RAM slots, >>> swapping back the old CPU would be the next test, and failing >>> that then the motherboard must be broken. >>> >> > Known problem with AM2/3 boards + older Nvidia cards. In those cases you must > use Windows 10 not later than 1909 or ltsc-1809. > I just installed the the ISO from the M$ website, and it's working fine. don't know what version it is. -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-10 08:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <675769a6@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71477 |
Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, >> Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but >> that's a matter of opinion. > > what happens if they get root access? They can read any file and install/change whatever software they like, same as you can yourself. A non-root user on a Linux system is more limited, although exactly how limited depends on the permissions granted to that user (for a user running high-risk things like Web server processes, usually very few). -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-10 10:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lrpcg8Fobq6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71480 |
Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, >>> Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but >>> that's a matter of opinion. >> what happens if they get root access? > They can read any file and install/change whatever software they > like, same as you can yourself. A non-root user on a Linux system > is more limited, although exactly how limited depends on the > permissions granted to that user (for a user running high-risk > things like Web server processes, usually very few). > thanks, that explains it. I assume reinstalling Linux fixes the problem -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-11 07:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6758b282@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71481 |
Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, >>>> Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but >>>> that's a matter of opinion. >>> what happens if they get root access? >> They can read any file and install/change whatever software they >> like, same as you can yourself. A non-root user on a Linux system >> is more limited, although exactly how limited depends on the >> permissions granted to that user (for a user running high-risk >> things like Web server processes, usually very few). > > thanks, that explains it. I assume reinstalling Linux fixes the problem Usually, unless it's something new which installs to the UEFI firmware like some viruses have done on Windows. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-12 21:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ls00eiFq8saU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71486 |
On 11/12/2024 7:28 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, >>>>> Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but >>>>> that's a matter of opinion. >>>> what happens if they get root access? >>> They can read any file and install/change whatever software they >>> like, same as you can yourself. A non-root user on a Linux system >>> is more limited, although exactly how limited depends on the >>> permissions granted to that user (for a user running high-risk >>> things like Web server processes, usually very few). >> >> thanks, that explains it. I assume reinstalling Linux fixes the problem > > Usually, unless it's something new which installs to the UEFI > firmware like some viruses have done on Windows. > See the first message in this thread, it has already been done. There is nothing special about Linux that would prevent the same thing being done. It may be difficult to come up with something that targets all distros, but attacking a single distro would not be too difficult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.computers
csiph-web