Got my Mac back
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Display Problem
Next: Buying a new Mac soon
From: Tim McNamara on 5 Feb 2010 23:08 In article <jwolf6589-6091F9.19564405022010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>, John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Tiger had to be archive installed and for some reason when I tried it > I got kernel panics, but when the repair center tried it worked. > Perhaps my installer DVD is bad, or perhaps I did not correct all > disk permissions before the install. Kernel panics are very typically a hardware problem- RAM gone bad, USB problems, etc. Did they check for that? -- "I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."
From: Richard Maine on 6 Feb 2010 00:51 John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > In article <timmcn-BBBE1D.22083705022010(a)news-2.mpls.iphouse.net>, > Tim McNamara <timmcn(a)bitstream.net> wrote: > > Kernel panics are very typically a hardware problem- RAM gone bad, USB > > problems, etc. Did they check for that? > > Yes they did and there are no problems. You are wrong in your assessment > of kernel problems. > > http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/kernelpanics.html Um. He says that kernel panics are typically a hardware problem such as bad RAM. You say he is wrong and you cite a web page that starts its list of causes with (directly cut&pasted, with the grammar unrepaired) "Defective or incompatible RAM are the most frequent causes of kernel panics." and also lists several other hardware-related things. Perhaps we have dificulty distinguishing between the concepts of "wrong" and "right?" -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Richard Maine on 6 Feb 2010 14:17 John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > In article <1jdgn1t.88hjp9lfd35sN%nospam(a)see.signature>, > nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > > > John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <timmcn-BBBE1D.22083705022010(a)news-2.mpls.iphouse.net>, > > > Tim McNamara <timmcn(a)bitstream.net> wrote: > > > > > > Kernel panics are very typically a hardware problem- RAM gone bad, USB > > > > problems, etc. Did they check for that? > > > > > > Yes they did and there are no problems. You are wrong in your assessment > > > of kernel problems. > > > > > > http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/kernelpanics.html > > > > Um. He says that kernel panics are typically a hardware problem such as > > bad RAM. You say he is wrong and you cite a web page that starts its > > list of causes with (directly cut&pasted, with the grammar unrepaired) > > > > "Defective or incompatible RAM are the most frequent causes of > > kernel panics." > > > > and also lists several other hardware-related things. Perhaps we have > > dificulty distinguishing between the concepts of "wrong" and "right?" > > The mac certified tech says that my Mac had no hardware problems. Also I > ran multiple tests on the hardware and found no problems. My Mac DOES > NOT have hardware problems. Maybe your Mac doesn't. I wouldn't know. But that's not what Tim said. What Tim said was that "kernel panics are very typically hardware problems." That *IS* true. That also is almost exactly the same thing that the web site you cited says. There is an important difference between "typically" and "always". Some people actually do say what they mean; it would appear that Tim is one of them, at least in this case. Perhaps your Mac doesn't have hardware problems. I have insufficient data to say. But nothing justifies your statement that Tim is "wrong in [his] assessment of kernel problems." Frankly, given the apparent communication difficulties, I wouldn't place any money on your accuracy in relaying the tech's conclusion. (Not to speak of the fact that techs have been known to be wrong. As with any field, there are good ones and poor ones, and even the good ones occasionally miss things.) Could be right; I just wouldn't bet my own money on it. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Mike Rosenberg on 6 Feb 2010 18:11 John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > In article <1jdho1f.10qutsha2nqruN%nospam(a)see.signature>, > nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > > > Perhaps your Mac doesn't have hardware problems. I have insufficient > > data to say. But nothing justifies your statement that Tim is "wrong in > > [his] assessment of kernel problems." Frankly, given the apparent > > communication difficulties, I wouldn't place any money on your accuracy > > in relaying the tech's conclusion. (Not to speak of the fact that techs > > have been known to be wrong. As with any field, there are good ones and > > poor ones, and even the good ones occasionally miss things.) Could be > > right; I just wouldn't bet my own money on it. > > I have received 2 panics (both in iTunes) since getting the Mac back. > But so far it has been great. Um, you got the Mac back just yesterday, and you've already had TWO kernel panics?? And yet you say it's been great? Geez, John! Under normal conditions, you should never have a kernel panic. Not rarely, not hardly ever, _NEVER_. Something is definitely wrong with that iBook, and at this point it's almost certainly hardware. I'm betting it's the RAM. I can tell you about all sorts of cases in which hardware tests, even overnight loops, haven't detected memory problems, but replacing RAM has made the computer stop having kernel panics and/or hard freezes. Passing a test tells you no problems were _detected_, not that no problems actually exist. Memory tests, no matter how extensive, cannot simulate all possible real-world situations, nor can they test the portion of RAM that's needed to boot the computer and run the test software in the first place. -- My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_9pudbFisE> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
From: John McWilliams on 6 Feb 2010 18:43
Mike Rosenberg wrote: > John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <1jdho1f.10qutsha2nqruN%nospam(a)see.signature>, >> nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: >> >>> Perhaps your Mac doesn't have hardware problems. I have insufficient >>> data to say. But nothing justifies your statement that Tim is "wrong in >>> [his] assessment of kernel problems." Frankly, given the apparent >>> communication difficulties, I wouldn't place any money on your accuracy >>> in relaying the tech's conclusion. (Not to speak of the fact that techs >>> have been known to be wrong. As with any field, there are good ones and >>> poor ones, and even the good ones occasionally miss things.) Could be >>> right; I just wouldn't bet my own money on it. >> I have received 2 panics (both in iTunes) since getting the Mac back. >> But so far it has been great. > > Um, you got the Mac back just yesterday, and you've already had TWO > kernel panics?? And yet you say it's been great? Geez, John! Under > normal conditions, you should never have a kernel panic. Not rarely, not > hardly ever, _NEVER_. > > Something is definitely wrong with that iBook, and at this point it's > almost certainly hardware. I'm betting it's the RAM. I can tell you > about all sorts of cases in which hardware tests, even overnight loops, > haven't detected memory problems, but replacing RAM has made the > computer stop having kernel panics and/or hard freezes. > > Passing a test tells you no problems were _detected_, not that no > problems actually exist. Memory tests, no matter how extensive, cannot > simulate all possible real-world situations, nor can they test the > portion of RAM that's needed to boot the computer and run the test > software in the first place. Absolutely Kee-Rect. If you have added RAM, take out that stick, and test by using computer normally. -- john mcwilliams |