[140] in DeathTongue Changes
Re: Video Support
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marc Horowitz)
Wed Feb 3 18:12:20 1999
From: Marc Horowitz <marc@MIT.EDU>
To: Aidan Low <aidan@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Fast Cart <fastcart@MIT.EDU>, licks@MIT.EDU
Date: 03 Feb 1999 18:12:00 -0500
In-Reply-To: Aidan Low's message of Wed, 03 Feb 1999 17:00:51 EST
Aidan Low <aidan@MIT.EDU> writes:
>> So we have a few choices: 1. Redo the whole system with just NT4.
>> This means that the machine will be somewhat reliable, but we won't be
>> able to play around with NT5 stuff right now. This seems like the
>> best solution to me, since if the machine isn't usable there's no
>> point to having it there.
>>
>> 3. Redo the whole system with just NT5. Given our reports of NT5's
>> instability, this seems a poor idea, though it made sense to me once
>> given that no one seems to use NT4 anymore.
>>
>> I'm willing to do whichever of these seems to make sense. What I
>> really want to do is to get Deathtongue to a point where it's a useful
>> machine that people might randomly sit down to use instead of one of
>> the linux boxes because it does most of the same stuff that they want
>> to do.
I'd like to know why NT5 is so broken. If someone broke it, I'd like
to see if we can try it again. If it's unavoidable bitrot, or if we
try it again and it starts to lose again, then NT4 sonuds like the
right thing. I agree that the downsides of dual-booting probably
outweigh the advantages.
e40 people: There's a few of you on this list who are presumably using
nt5 somewhat regularly. How reliable is it for you? What do you
recommend we do?
Marc
