To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I wanted to give Icaros a try - downloaded Live - and only the latest menu entry allowed to boot it at all. Choosing first or second one results in complaining of my monitor: "mode not supported (H:90.1 kHz, V:60.1 Hz). Then the machine seems to be hung (had to use hardware reset). Choosing the third one shows some boot messages, but stops loading on "[packet] couldn't open bsd.handler" message. The last one booted successfully - but it looks awful, of course, in 16 colours.
It doesn't seem to be prepared to run on somewhat older hardware - most probably it requires rather recent monitors to try it. When switched to rather modern Gateway monitor, I could see boot messages in all available boot modes - still it doesn't work.
Mobo Gigabyte GA-M56S-S3, Sempron64, ATI HD5450 (Tried also with Nvidia on that second monitor).
IMHO it could be somewhat better tested before making a release, and such "demanding" graphics modes shouldn't be used for "live", where I can't tweak configuration file - since it's written on DVD-ROM. It just either will work, or not (and this time it isn't).
Have a look in the guide, chapter 2 IIRC.
You should be able to pass settings to kernel before downloading it, just choose a suitable boot line like
Icaros Desktop (Legacy 800x600 resolution)
and press E. Then have a look into this setting
VESA=800x600@60
and kill the @60 part, maybe this is forcing AROS to a video frequency your monitor does not support. To continue booting, press Ctrl+X.
And you and the guy who modded me down obviously can't seem to follow how a forum or threads work because if you could you would see I was ANSWERING A POSTER when you jumped in, going full retard I might add,by equating using a tiny niche hobbyist OS with sticking it to MSFT which makes no damned sense, okay?
As I pointed out if you wanted to "stick it to the man" you would NOT be running an incredibly niche OS with few drivers, lousy monitor support as another poster wrote, and little to no software, you would use, in no particular order, BSD, Linux, Solaris, hell there is even a flavor of OS/2 called Ecomstation and even THEY have better support!
Again try reading the thread before responding, otherwise you look foolish. I wrote that I saw NO problem in using a niche OS like Amiga for nostalgia, or because you have some favored Amiga software you want to run, hell I kept an old Win9x box for ages just for running old DOS stuff, but do NOT try to equate using an OS made by Bob in his basement to "sticking it to the man" because that is about the most stupid thing anybody could possibly say!
And no crap I know this is OSNews, which is why I listed several choices besides just Apple and MSFT, never before in history have we had so many OSes that actually support most hardware to choose from, heck you have something like 60 variants of Linux that has major support, 4 flavors of BSD, 2 kinds of Solaris, Android, ChromeOS, you got well supported choices up the behind so trying to say its Amiga or MSFT is just retarded.





Member since:
2005-11-15
You are aware you're on a website called OSnews? That discusses Operatng Systems? Often the hobby 'fun' ones?
[forced analogy]That's a bit like going onto a music site and saying you don't need new bands or obscure wierd band you've never heard of because we've got the Beatles and their better than anything else, even if you've never heard it..[/forced analogy]
Actually, forget it. you've missed the point of this sort of thing by such a margin there's very little point in even trying.
But go on, feel free to insult me again.