Craig White wrote: > You can install Windows on that system but it will prove nothing - even > if Windows fails. > > My understanding is that your purchase of that machine was driven by the > fact that it was certified to work with RH 9. The fact that it cannot > pass the memtest.exe of RH 9 is proof that the system, with present > components is substandard and not up to specification. Period. If the > system wasn't newly/recently manufactured (i.e. used/reconditioned), it > may be as simple as a BIOS upgrade. > You're exactly correct i purchsed the machine because it can run on Linux. > Installing Windows is a peripheral issue - you did not purchase it for > use with Windows, Windows may incorporate some undocumented fix for > substandard hardware and what on earth are you going to use to > adequately test it to determine failure? This too is a waste of time for > which you should be compensated. In the end, installing Windows will > neither prove nor disprove anything that hasn't already been proven. But, after supplying it with adequete driver(SCSI) windows can't detect the drive. I couldn't install windows. Also, i have made clear to them that even if was successfully installing windows i want to run Linux and only Linux on it. I tried with windows only for their sake. Wasted time is already gone. I want to prove them that if Linux doesn't work nothing will. > > Basic Philosophical logic here: > 1- System is certified for use with RH 9 > 2- Boot RH 9 disc - execute memtest > 3- system fails - system is substandard and does not meet > specifications/certification. > 4- Windows is irrelevant to discussion Right. As today is sunday i can't catch them. I think in a day or two i can ask them give compensation or just return the system back. > Craig Thanks again, -- Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. --- Linus Torvalds -- SK -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
