From: U. George (gatgulgatworks.com)
Date: Fri Feb 20 2004 - 12:56:51 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

It was the same for the no-name ( 166-233mhz ) , and I think for the
lx164 also . When NT/alpha became unsupported u had a choice of getting
and installing the srm console. Arc console was more friendly though.
 Although over time, due to lack of use, you forget how to properly
start either types of consoles.

I'm not too sure if *prefered* matters anymore. There was no more
support for the NT stuff at that time. Now, or very soon, there wont be
any support for the SRM either. I'm sure that (dec/compaq ) HP now
prefers a whole another approach.

if you can get the linload/milo boot sequence working from arc, i would
keep the arc console. After all you may find the NT/3.5 CD's around
somewhere ! :-}

trevor wrote:

>On Friday 20 February 2004 13:15, U. George wrote:
>
>
>>Some arc consoles, as i remem from long ago, allowed you to select
>>either the ARC, or SRM console. It was an option in the menu. BUT not
>>all machines had this ability.
>>
>>
>
>Unfortunately I think this is the category I fit in. According to the MILO FAQ
>(aka the "Alpha Miniloader Howto"):
>
> Please note that the preferred way of booting Linux is via SRM console and
> MILO should only be used if either there is no SRM console for your hardware
> (XL series) or your current hardware isn't supported by SRM.
>
>Which describes me since I have an XL-266.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>axp-list mailing list
>axp-listredhat.com
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/axp-list
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
axp-list mailing list
axp-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/axp-list

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]