LilBeaver

These are fantastic sounding pipes. I cannot stand obnoxiously loud bikes and cars but I can appreciate one that sounds good. These pipes definitely sound good without sounding unnatural [if that makes sense]. I only put mine on every once and a while -- with the kind of riding I do, I just got tired of the drone after a few hours in the saddle. One of these days I will get around to posting an ad in the classifieds to send them to a good home... Enjoy yours!

I don't think so... At least last time I checked... http://www.joke-of-the-day.com/files/images/trick.jpg

Uh, last I checked RSV and Wings have Drive shafts soooo, that means there is no chain to yank :think:

Yup, the good ones do: http://www.geforce.com/drivers Or one can write their own drivers, which is not nearly as complicated as it may sound...

Well, first of all, I did not mean to come across as if I were 'bashing' Ubuntu. There are many flavors for a reason. Sounds like your setup works well for you and that is great! For me, I absolutely HATE using the mouse to have to click around to start programs or for almost anything else really. I find it inefficient and irritating. Give me some keybaord shortcuts and/or a terminally window, and look out. Yes, it does mean that my way may not be as 'user friendly' to everyone, but it is user friendly to me so . Even with the 'older' windows interfaces, I could zip through with keyboard shortcuts and get done what I needed to. It may not have looked as simple as clicking the 'home' button and scrolling to the program I want but my fingers work faster than my eyes do when it comes to finding the program I want. So, you like yours and I like mine so My other problem with the fancy GUIs is that the GUI uses system resources. the more system resources that the GUI is using up the less I have available for my calculations and nobody wants slow calculations :no-no-no: Again, for home use I am not quite as concerned about the resource aspect of it BUT I am also content to continue using what I am familiar with. I respect your choices as I know you respect mine. HAHA, well look at you! :happy65: I should have been a little more careful with my earlier comments about not being surprised that things crashed. The last few versions of firefox have been a bit buggy, hence their rapid fire release of updates int he last month or a few. Once you get your Ubuntu up, don't forget the quick sudo apt-get update/upgrade to get everything up to snuff. I have already commented on the filesystem compatibility issue above. What do you mean that your installation does not complete? Making the choices of partitioning the hard drive includes the setup of the Swap partition. If you have linux do this automatically, then it typically matches your RAM and that is it. In your case, I would set the SWAP partition to ~2GB or maybe a little more, just to be sure to have enough -- even after you find your elusive ram sticks. As Tx2sturgis mentions, the Swap space is used by the OS as 'virtual ram'. That is to say that linux (well any OS) reserves part of the hard disk to read and write to as the 'random access memory'. On modern systems with 8+ GB of ram, this process is not quite as critical as it used to be but in your case, I would triple check to make sure the swap space is being allocated appropriately.

Define 'cannot be seen on the network' -- Do you mean that you simply cannot browse to it from a windows machine or you cannot access it at all? During the setup process you should have had an opportunity to configure the network interface(s) -- either using DCHP or set a static IP address. Either way, if the machine starts the network services and SSH is running then you should be able to access the machine, even if it does not laod the GUI. You just need to know the IP address which you can either (1) Assign or (2) do a lookup [via your router, if you cannot get to it from the machine itself]. Understood Well if you really only have 512 MB of ram then that is something to be addressed. I will comeback to that. Since you have windows 7 on there now, go ahead and go into the device manager and write down the video card information, and post it up here so I know what you are working with. You said that your ubuntu installation "errored out" and then an icon showed up to continue installing but nothing apparent happened. What does that mean? How long did you wait? Did you try switching to look at the terminal that Anaconda writes to so that you can actually monitor the process? Did the icon perhaps suggest 'additional drivers'? Also, was this Ubuntu 12.04/12.10 or some other iteration? NOTE that the minimum requirements for Ubuntu 12 are a 700 MHz processor [intel celeron or better], 512 MB of ram and 5GB of hard drive space. You do NOT have enough ram to run this -- especially if you are using the onboard video since that shares the system ram. -- if you want to test a Linux system, using something like Damn Small linux (DSL), Puppy Linux or you could do CentOS as long as you do not install the GUI. Before going much further, and since you have windows 7 on this machine, could you go ahead and actually look up your machine info and post it here so I know what kind of components you are working with. Earlier you did mention your motherboard and such, which is fine, processor, chipset and video card are also very important at this time as well. Are you trying to use the on board video or do you have a dedicated card? Anyway -- Don't worry, there is something out there that will run on this machine for you

Actually you would NOT be able to do this. The standard linux filesystem cannot be read by Dos/windows file systems (FAT16/FAT32/NTFS). Although, it does beg the question as to whether the installation does not actually finish or is the installation finished it is just not configured properly to boot. A question I should have asked right away was how much time have you given the machine on the 'flashing cursor' screen? On a first boot on an older/slower machine might take a while to actually get going -- For example, it may take more than just a few minutes -- possibly up to 20 or 30 depending on what is going on...

Excellent video, as usual.

HAHA. Not surprised. Linux Mint [mate] is what Ubuntu USED to be... before they added all the extra mac/winders user interface garbage... Open SuSe has not changed much in the last couple years -- at least from an user perspective so it may be just like you remembered...

ALSO -- something that may be a little bit confusing is the labels in the filenames for XBMC. Do note that the 'intel' and 'AMD' (or in some cases it may say "intel-amd" or 'intel-nvidia") in the filename refer to the VIDEO chipset NOT your processor. Just because you have an AMD processor does NOT necessarily mean that you will have an AMD video card chipset on board. Make sure that you are using the PROPER iso for your system.

The "flashing cursor" at this point means that you are either still booting or that the appropriate video drivers are not being loaded so it gets 'stuck' when trying to load the GUI. For what it is worth, if SSH is properly configured you can most likely still SSH into the machine even with this 'flashing cursor' that you describe; but there is a much more direct way to do it -- that is via a virtual console. To access a virtual console when you are on ANY screen in linux (including the 'flashing cursor screen' that you describe) press "Ctrl" "Alt" "F2" all simultaneously. Depending on the distribution you may need one of the other function keys besides F2. For example on CentOS based systems the GUI is located on F6, F7 or F8 -- except for during the installation process when you have Anaconda on F2, virtual console on F3 and the GUI on F1 [if memory serves me correctly]. If you get a prompt that has something like "username@hostname ~]$" or "hostname>" etc, then you are in and your machine has booted and linux is running fine -- you just need to properly setup your video card. Okay this answers most of my question but as SilvrT asks I need some clarification as to what you think a 'minimal' or 'complete' linux package is. I think you might be a little confused as to how these distributions are setup. Unless you happen to pick a different distribution that happens to load the proper video card drivers on the install, you are going to repeat the same issues you have been having with the 'flashing cursor'. If you want to do an install of a Linux OS that will most likely work fine without having to do any extra configuration on your machine then I would reccomend going with LinuxMint MATE. Mint typically uses the generic video drivers until after you load the GUI for the first time, at which point it prompts you with a GUI interface to update and properly install your video drivers. This, however, will not solve your Ubuntu/XBMC problem unless you just install the XBMC package on Mint, which will work just fine. There are plenty of media center applications out there in the open source/linux world that will work with a windows media center remote control. Some applications that will allow you to remap the keys of your remote to do whatever you want with them too -- but I digress. Do not be fooled too much as LinuxMint is Ubuntu based. A 'minimal' installation with respect to the verbage used in this context typically means that the installation is done is such a way that provides the user with just enough of the OS to function. In the case of XBMC, someone decided to setup a basic Ubuntu based system with the XBMC media center application installed and enough other stuff to make it work. That means that they did not use the 'standard' ubuntu desktop (Either GNOME 3, or any of the others you can choose from) and setup XBMC instead. This is why I am a little confused as to the language you keep using of 'minimal' vs 'complete' install as I do not know if you think picking a distribution and installing every package available [ie a complete install] is going to magically fix the video driver problem you are having. You may be correct in that you may get lucky and pick a distribution that happens to have your card drivers in there or a generic one that will work, but if what you want is XBMC to work, then I would say, do not give up quite yet and just get it setup properly or pick a distribution that will do the setup for you and then just install XBMC or some other media center application so you can kick back and enjoy your machine. Rick: In my experience, the only differences between a 'server' version or 'desktop' version are what repositories and packages are installed by default when you go through and do the setup. No more, no less. In fact, if you click on 'custom installation' when you do one of these setups, it does not really matter whether you clicked on 'minimal system', 'cluster', 'basic desktop', 'server', 'everything including fuel injection and a turbo kit' because when you customize the packages that will be installed you can pick whatever the heck you want to put on there. Server or workstation, you can do things from a 'command line' (terminal) or the GUI -- it is really all up to the user. For those that think just because it is a server you do everything from a command line -- well, you CAN do everything from a command line, if you want to. You could do everything form a command line on a workstation too, if you WANTED too. Just like you could drive your car with your feet, if you WANTED to; that does not mean it is the best way or only way to do something. I am no expert, by any stretch of the imagination, but I do manage a few of my own servers and a cluster, for my work. My experience is limited to CentOS/Scientific Linux, Open SuSe, Ubuntu/Mint and a few varieties based on each of those. I have a windows machine that I use for some work and the rest I do on a few Linux workstations or servers. For what it is worth, I cannot stand Ubuntu 12 or any of the later ones that have gone to the 'ubuntu one' interface or that force you to run GNOME 3... It is a huge resource hog and strays away from the 'simple' system it used to be. However, it IS much more user friendly for folks that are just getting started with the system and it does work; it is just not my first choice. ---- Back to the original issue: This could be one of two things: (1) Video card drivers not being loaded properly for install (2) Something happening with the bootloader when doing the actual install If you can access the virtual console and hence your system, then it is definitely (1) If you have NO access to the virtual console then it is most likely (2). If it is (2) try using the application called unetbootin ( http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/ ) to setup your flashdrive for the XBMC system and redo the installation. (Note that you have to click on the 'for windows' to download the software for windows. When you run this program, make sure you select the radio button for .iso and select the ISO from your HDD to make the image, otherwise you will be downloading a new ISO file which is unnecesary) I know you said you were using 'Rufus' or something like that, I am not familiar with that program and it may do things just fine, but for the sake of trying to diagnose this, please humor me so we can eliminate some of these variables. I use unetbootin for ALL of my linux box setups and not once has it failed on me. I have had a lot of screwy things happen with various Linux installations, but never was it unetbootin's fault. -- Sorry for my delayed response, work has been especially crazy the last couple of days and I have not been able to get on here nearly as frequently as I was hoping to. In fact, my work day on Thursday took me from 7AM to ~6AM Friday morning when I went home, napped for an hour, ate something and went back to the lab for another day just about like that... *party*. I hope this is helpful, I realize this process is frustrating but remember... it would be too easy if it just 'worked' right?

Okay, first off my apologies for not reading your earlier posts a little more carefully the first time through -- when I get tired, my reading comprehension suffers sometimes... This conflicts with your next statement... I am confused -- in the earlier post you said you installed ubuntu with no success? XBMC is just Ubuntu with the media packages loaded... If you were able to boot to the live OS from the same flash drive and .iso you used for the install [you booted to the OS and on the desktop clicked something like 'install XMBC on the hard disk' -- or something like that] then there is nothing wrong with the iso. I can explain this further if you would like, but for now I am going to try to keep this as short as possible. As freezy suggested initially, I believe this to be a video card related issue. If you are using the on-board video (I believe it is an ATI chipset) you need to actually manually install drivers and such for it to work. Again, I need a little more information from you before I can give more specific instructions but here are some questions: 1) Have you tried accessing a virtual console to verify that the system is not actually booting instead of maybe just not loading the GUI/Xsession? I am willing to bet that you are just not loading the GUI and need to install the appropriate video drivers to load it, and that should take care of it. If you can get to the virtual console (ctrl alt F2 -- or any of the F_keys with control and alt pressed; sometimes different distributions put the GUI on F1, F2, F6, F7 or F8 and the virtual consoles on the others) you know that your OS is on there and functioning alright. One thing to try would be to work with the gfx_modes and other kernel graphics options to select the appropriate video driver for the Xsession/GUI. 2) You have said a few times that you used a 'bootable' image -- this is ambiguous. An installation image and a live image are both bootable but very different. A 'live' image is one that allows you to use the OS completely from whatever media it is on, as if it were actually installed on the machine. An installation image is also 'bootable' but takes you through the installation process and ends with the 'remove your installation media and reboot'. Which type did you use? I know you said that you used "xbmcbuntu-12.00.Intel-AMD" I am not quite sure what this is and cannot find much in the way of information on something with this label. One thing that I do know you can do is do an install of either LinuxMint or Ubuntu and then just download and install the xbmc package ( http://xbmc.org/download/ ) and then you are done. Where are you finding this 'prepackaged' image that you are using? ---- For what it is worth, my recommendation would be this: Download and install either Linux Mint (with MATE) ( http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php ) or Ubuntu ( http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop ) and THEN download and install the XBMC package that you would like to use for the appropriate chipset (). ---- I suppose you you could try one of these 'complete' packages (if you can find one compatible with your AMD chipset), such as one of these: http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=XBMCbuntu Although it sounds like that might be what you are trying to use.

A little more info might be helpful here. I agree with Tx2sturgis and your comments about the grub bootloader NOT finding the proper partition [common problem]. How did you do the initial install -- was it a 'live' iso? 'boot' iso? 'install' iso? from a CD/DVD or USB stick [your statement of 'from an iso' is somewhat ambiguous, and the details DO matter] What kind of machine and hardware are you putting this on? I know that someone has already asked if it meets the minimum specs, BUT my question has more to it than that. If your machine ONLY supports IDE, then it is old enough that you might need to do some trickery to get the install to function properly IF you are doing it off of a USB drive opposed to the CDROM. One of the main issues is when the installer sets up the boot sector, it only knows what the BIOS tells it and in some cases (some BIOS setups) when booting off of USB drive, the machine treats the USB drive as a hard drive and moves the physical hard drive 'down' the list. Then when you reboot without the USB drive, the machine no longer sees the setup that was there and hence, you get the flashing cursor or any other slew of errors. Also does the machine have a cd/DVD drive that you could do the install from or are you restricted to USB? The fact that you are getting a flashing cursor INSTEAD of a GRUB bootloader screen or some other error message, is actually quite significant. This is highly suggestive of your machine not even making it to the GRUB part --- which SHOULD be located within the first couple hundred kbs of the boot drive. [i had an old server do this to me and it turned out that every time I had a USB stick or cd installed on boot, the machine would re-order the drive assignments and GRUB would have a stroke...] You can look into this a little further by making a 'live' disk to boot off of, then run a disk utility to further investigate how the hard drive is partitioned and what is being called where. While what Tx2sturgis said is true (replacing the hard drive) about being an easy way to go, if you do not care about the contents of your hard drive, there is no reason you cannot just format it and start over -- unless there is something actually wrong with your drive. Not knowing how much computer experience you have (windows, mac or linux) I am not really sure how much direction to include here. I will try to stay tuned enough to help you out, if you post again on this issue.

So sorry to hear this Brian. Been a hard week for a few of us around here... If there is anything I can do, you've got my number - don't hesitate to ask.

All it would take is the right amount of :mo money::mo money: Ha. Funny guy. Thanks a lot! As soon as things get finalized, I will let you guys know so we can work something out. Looking forward to it, as always

So long as I am in town, I will be there Already penciled in on the calendar. Now if I can just get work to work around MY schedule... Sounds like a winner to me. But I take what you are saying is that our couple of two-person 'meet-and-eats' were not 'real' meat and eats?

One of these days we ought to get together... I travel a lot for work, but do live in Lubbock [and my home 'office'/lab is in lubbock], so presumably we could work something out... sometime.... You'd better watch what you say and offer as I might be headed your way soon! [Waiting on the final draft of the schedule, but it looks like it might be the entire month of June]...

I just saw this, guess I am a little late in saying thanks to all of you! :thumbsup2:

Ahoy there. Well had I seen this earlier maybe we could have had a mini meet-and-eat. I suppose if we were quick we might still meet up somewhere. I am in Lubbock which is not too far north of you. Those windfarms really are something, aren't they!

Looks like a much nicer ride than what this guy had around 1:47 [p.s. glad he is okay] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD3MuL99r9U]My Crash on Mt Lemmon or be alert on ice.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

I see 5.1 lb-ft (7 Nm) in the manual

You said the 'two lights start blinking' -- this sounds like one of the self-diagnostic trouble codes. There is a table on page 8-85 in the service manual that lists the codes and what they mean. Next time it happens, pay close attention to how many times it blinks in fast succession. The blink pattern will be lights on for 0.5 seconds, off for 0.5 seconds and then start blinking --- the number of times it blinks here is the code--- then off for 3 seconds and repeat the code again. Hope that helps

What, no pictures? :duck:

Oh, he gets plenty of those :bowdown::bowdown: Oh yeah? Maybe the salt/sea spray from all that ocean front property you have in Plainview got into the contacts on the SD and caused some problems -- yeah, that is feasible...

http://tourtank.com/TourTanks.html Although the 1-2 gallon can mounted somewhere on the bike or in the bags [as mentioned several times now] works and is a little less pricey. It really depends on how you want to use the extra fuel though -- if you want to be able to ride further than your standard tank will get you versus the 'just in case' fuel... I have had an extra can I take with (2.25 gal) when I ride around here in West Texas and New Mexico because there are plenty of stretches of road or routes that simply do not have fuel for a few hundred miles [as mentioned]-- at least fuel that is reliable. In addition to the constant winds here (routinely 20-40+ mph) -- one just cannot plan very well when you take a ride in the boonies. I realize there are some places that you cannot go more than 15 or 20 miles without a fuel station, but not down here. Plain and simple, I much prefer riding where I want to ride and not be limited to 'where I can go based on my fuel stops'. When I lived up in the Chicago area and rode up into northern Wisconsin, lived in the Detroit area and rode around the 'mitten fuel stops were simply not an issue. The few years I lived in the U.P. fuel stops on various routes were a little more of a challenge but not nearly as bad as it is down here. Either way -- the can works well for the times that I want some 'just in case'. The TourTank works great when I am looking to make tracks and just want to ride without stopping for a while (which I also do from time to time). So you have some options and it comes down to what YOU want. The drawback to the TourTank is that when mounted, it occupies the space where the passenger seat would go and hence, I ride solo. A hitch mount would be awesome for this -- one of these days, I will get around to see about making one of those work for me... Just need to find a hitch and platform...