On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 at 03:26 GMT, Mark Healey penned: > On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:08:05 -0900, Ken Irving wrote: > >>On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 06:17:52PM -0800, Mark Healey wrote: >>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:03:59 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote: ... >>> >>> >It all comes down to specific hardware configuration. Every system >>> >has some hardware that it won't be prepared to use right out of the >>> >box. >>> >>> The Broadcom 4400 is hardly rare. >> >>I haven't been following this saga, but googling for Broadcom 4400 >>seems to suggest that the support for this chipset might be a very >>recent thing. Perhaps you could get another network card for which >>drivers do exist, get the system running, and then resume your effort >>to get the Broadcom working. >> >>It is reasonable to expect some difficulties in building a system with >>barely supported hardware, however non-rare it might be. > > I thought of that but it is a dual boot setup (controled with a > physical switch) and I would have to reconfigure the other OS.
What's the other OS? When I threw in an external card to bootstrap linux on my dual-boot box, win2k was happy as a clam to use two ethernet cards while they were available. > The broadcom is also on the mobo which means extra hassle. It's 99.9% likely that you can disable the broadcom in your BIOS. There's no reason you should have to -- linux will ignore the network card unless it has a module for it, and windows will keep on using it -- but if you want to, the capability should be there. -- monique PLEASE don't CC me. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top. Whatever it takes, just don't CC me! I'm already subscribed!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
