[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian on Digital 3305



Hi

The problem I encountered with Debian on my 3300 is the built in graphics chip the S3 Trio 64.

I could not get Xwindows and that to agreee with each other at all.

It ran fine as long as you did not want X windows.

I have since found out you can disable the onboard graphics by changing the jumper J27.

I have a Matrox Millenium I am going to try in it and see if I get anywhere with that.

HTH

John

 On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:37:24 +0100
Laczay Balint <blac@cs.bme.hu> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm a newbie, but I think there is a mistake on Debian Alpha compatibility
> list.  I have a DIGITAL Server 3000 Model 3305 6500A and it runs Debian
> Linux prefectly.  But the Debian documentation says that this should not.
> 
> Citation from http://www.debian.org/ports/alpha/sys_types:
> 
> Model		Alias			Supported	Supported
> 					by Linux	by GNUMach
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> DigServ3300	Corelle(Noritake fam)	Yes		No
> DigServ3300R	Corelle(Noritake fam)	Yes		No
> DigServ3305	UNKNOWN			No		No
> DigServ3305R	UNKNOWN			No		No
> 
> 
> However there is another source of information also in the Debian docs,
> which I cannot understand:
> 
> http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/alpha/install.en.txt says:
> 
> Hardware Type                   Aliases                 MILO image
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> NORITAKE
> - Digital Server 3300           Corelle                 N/A
> - Digital Server 3300R          Corelle                 N/A
> 
> 
> I really sorry, that I don't understand all details of these lines,
> but I think that my experience with my running Debian contradicts with
> (at least) the first ciation.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Balint Laczay
> 
> -- 
>     Laczay Balint
> www.szit.bme.hu/~blac
>    blac@szit.bme.hu
> 


-- 
Sent using Sylpheed. Secure, stable and nothing to do with Microsoft.

aMSN williamhgates2001@msn.com
GnomeICU 92791912  



Reply to: