| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 260.1 | | POBOXB::BAK | | Mon Sep 23 1996 11:09 | 13 |
| 260.2 | Don't take it out! | BIGCHZ::EZZELL | Mike Ezzell | Tue Sep 24 1996 11:12 | 6 |
| 260.3 | | POBOXB::BAK | | Tue Sep 24 1996 13:52 | 8 |
| 260.4 | a step in the right direction! | VNABRW::STREICHER | | Fri Sep 27 1996 10:16 | 11 |
| 260.5 | Need more info, not less | BBPBV1::WALLACE | No cold war! No peace dividend? | Sat Sep 28 1996 14:28 | 12 |
| 260.6 | I found the configuration table useful | CXXC::REINIG | This too shall change | Wed Oct 16 1996 12:41 | 49 |
| 260.7 | | POBOXB::BAK | | Wed Oct 16 1996 16:35 | 10 |
| 260.8 | | CXXC::REINIG | This too shall change | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:30 | 22 |
| 260.9 | | POBOXB::BAK | | Thu Oct 17 1996 11:04 | 9 |
| 260.10 | | CXXC::REINIG | This too shall change | Fri Oct 18 1996 15:42 | 10 |
| 260.11 | Max memory error | MOVMON::DAVIS | | Mon Nov 18 1996 12:27 | 6 |
| 260.12 | NT4.0 isn't that bad is it? | APACHE::ROY | I don't drive fast, I fly low | Tue May 20 1997 15:46 | 12 |
|
In V96-2.7--5 Mar 1997 of the 4100/4000 SOC, in the 'Backplane
Storage Controllers' section, for operating systems, it lists Windows
NT 3.51 / 4.0.
In V96-2.8--7 Apr 1997....blah blah blah, it only list 3.51, and
not 4.0.
This is a misprint right?
thanks, Glen(n)
|
| 260.13 | NT 4.0 only with SP | XDELTA::HOFFMAN | Steve, OpenVMS Engineering | Tue May 20 1997 16:07 | 5 |
|
If you're planning on running NT 4.0 on an Alpha, you need to acquire
one of Microsoft's recent NT service packs, else you'll have problems
with your system. (This has been discussed at length elsewhere, but
I don't happen to remember where that is...)
|
| 260.14 | Yeah, but what about the SOC? | APACHE::ROY | I don't drive fast, I fly low | Tue May 20 1997 17:05 | 10 |
|
Hi Steve. Ok, I can deal with SP's. We're clustering, and putting
MCIS on top of that. We have folks to deal with that stuff.
But my real question is: Is there a compelling reason for the SOC
to not list 4.0 other than a misprint???? My guess is that it's just a
goof.....
thanks, Glenn
|
| 260.15 | historic cut/paste error? | BBPBV1::WALLACE | john wallace @ bbp. +44 860 675093 | Wed May 21 1997 06:10 | 12 |
| There was a while where NT 4 had an SMP bug which was exposed on Alpha
systems, and some Product Managers chose to say "not supported", and
this was reflected in the SOC.
That bug is long since fixed. Maybe someone's accidentally picked up an
older version of the SOC as a template for a new chapter.
[Ideas as to how one makes the SOC a more reliable document are
welcome. Having a contact name for each chapter might be a start.]
regards
john
|
| 260.16 | SOC has seen its share of errors | XDELTA::HOFFMAN | Steve, OpenVMS Engineering | Thu May 22 1997 14:19 | 16 |
| : But my real question is: Is there a compelling reason for the SOC
: to not list 4.0 other than a misprint???? My guess is that it's just a
: goof.....
I'd suspect the omission was due to the Microsoft Windows
NT 4.0 bugs corrected by the Service Packs, and this text
has not yet been updated.
Surprisingly, the SOC has not been a high-priority item
for many product managers -- the format used in the SOC
tends to have a hardware product manager responding for
or incorporating information received from a software
product manager, and there tend to be a number of items
(such as minimum OS version numbers, 21164 variant) that
are not uniformly included in all articles, etc.
|