What type of sound system do you have? Onboard (on the motherboard) or PCI.

I had no sound with my onboard sound and ended up editing a configuration
file to get it back.

It was identified as an ALi Corporation M5455. I looked it up and between
what I read on the net and help from Roy, I was able to fix the problem.

I use onboard sound...................

Do you know what model of sound system you have? When I searched for a
solution I googled "ubuntu m5455". It returned the solution.

This is what my system tells me is the sound system:

Hardware PCM card 0 'HDA Intel' device 0 subdevice 0
Its setup is:
stream : PLAYBACK
access : MMAP_INTERLEAVED
format : S32_LE
subformat : STD
channels : 2
rate : 48000
exact rate : 48000 (48000/1)
msbits : 32
buffer_size : 8192
period_size : 1024
period_time : 21333
tstamp_mode : ENABLE
period_step : 1
avail_min : 1024
period_event : 0
start_threshold : 1
stop_threshold : 4611686018427387904
silence_threshold: 0
silence_size : 4611686018427387904
boundary : 4611686018427387904

I am still looking on the web for a solution though

What did you use to get that list? It didn't reveal the chipset.

Open a terminal window and type "lshw | grep -i audio" and it should
display the audio chip after "Product:"

I googled HDA Intel ubuntu. You may get some info from these links.

HDA Intel means Intel system High Definition Audio.

http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Matrix:Module-hda-intel

Check this out

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/HdaIntelSoundHowto

I used the a command from the ALSA site to get the details I sent.

The command you sent me (thanks by the way) gave me the result: product: 82801G
(ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio Controller

And if you now enter "intel 82801g" into Google, you'll find a lot
of info about the chip and Linux. :-)

Seems some people are having problems with that chipset and 8.10,
even with Dell systems using Red Hat.

For example:

<ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=6086485>

for which the apparent solution (in a terminal window) is:

sudo apt-get install linux-sound-base

You have noticed the difference between 8.04's Kubuntu and 8.10's. It now uses
KDE 4 instead of KDE 3.5. There are major differences in the look and feel, the
core and the configuration.

The problem right now is that KDE4 is a work in progress, When I started using
it, it was big and ugly with few options to change it. Now it is much more
refined and more configurable, however some features are still to come. The ones
that you want are not out yet. See:
ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-924226.html

Be patient. It works great now. It just is more like Gnome than KDE in that it
isn't as configurable as KDE 3.5. That is changing all of the time.

do you prefer the KDE, I still like Gnome for its clean line better,

It is growing on me. I have been using it off and on since January and have seen
real improvements. It is faster than KDE 3.5, but it isn't as configurable, ...
yet. When it first came out it wasn't configurable at all and it was big and
clunky. Now it is on par with Gnome in terms of configurability. If this is
acceptable then KDE is worth a look.

To like KDE 4 you have to change your thinking a bit. It is a totally different
experience from KDE 3.5 or Gnome. Don't expect it to be like either and try to
embrace what they are trying to do and you will like it, too. If you are wedded
to the Gnome way of doing things or KDE 3.5 then you will be disappointed.

I still don't like the slab menu which is small and requires too many mouse
clicks IMO. I like the desktop widgets and wish there were more of them. I like
the themes and decorations. I want more, of course. Choice is what I crave which
is why I like Linux in the first place. Not having it drives me around the bend
and patience is never my strong suit.

KDE 4 uses Oxygen which is a separate project and this tries to incorporate a
more modern crystal or realistic effect, ie. not as cartoonish. Plasma the
widget and desktop decoration engine is an improvement and an attempt to give a
look and feel on par with the Mac or Vista, similar to what you might get with
Google Gadgets or Screenlets. KDM 4 also has built in compositing, so there is
no need for Compiz Fusion, but then again you lose all of its cool features. I
have used Compiz with it, but I have not found out how to turn off built in
compositing yet. Truthfully, I have not seriously tried.

I think that I know why Ubuntu switched to KDE 4 with Kubuntu 8.10. There will
come a time when 3.5 won't be available at all. Right now KDE 4 is stable and
has enough to satisfy most people in terms of features, configuration and
applications. They always like to be ahead of the curve, pushing the envelope.

Most applications have been rewritten since KDE 4 uses a different programing
environment. If you want to install some KDE 4 and KDE 3.5 apps you will need
separate core libraries becauseit is based on a new version of QT (4). This move
in itself is exciting as it will allow it to appear on Windows and Mac machines
instead of their own desktop managers, giving dual and triple booters the same
look and feel in all OSes. This also gives KDE its performance improvement.

While you can jazz up KDE 3.5 so that it looks as good as KDE 4, this all comes
at the cost of a performance hit which does not happen with KDE 4 due to the way
it is built with improved memory management and processor speed. KDE 3.5 is on
its last legs. It has served us well, but it is time to move on which is why I
moved to the new Kubuntu over the old.

Note: I have messed up KDE 4 desktop several times by simply trying to configure
the desktop effects. When doing so I lose everything and just get a white
screen. This has happened to me twice. The way to restore it is to delete the
.kde folder in your home user folder which is not easy to do unless you have
another desktop installed. Fortunately I do. I just Ctrl+Alt+backspace and then
log into Gnome and delete the offending folder which when I get back into KDE 4
starts me fresh. You could do this from the Live CD if you don't have more than
one desktop installed.

I don't know why people don't have a second desktop installed. I have saved
Gnome or innumerable times from not working by booting into XFCE or the other
desktop from the one not working. Of course it is the tinkerer in me that gets
me into such trouble. I can never leave well enough alone.