>
> Tried out FC7T4 on my test machine as a clean install.
> The install went in clean and everything looks good. The
> machine is triple boot with FC7T3 and CentOS 5Beta.
> It had one PATA (IDE) drive in the primary master. For
> the FC7T4 testing, I added a SATA PCI card and a SATA drive.
I don't know if it's worth noting, but why continue to use t3
when t4 is
out (you would had known if t4 would had worked before installing by
using live cd first before wiping out t3) and any t3 bug
reporting would
be useless? And if your not going to triple boot or even dual boot in
the future (due to just trying them out to test and you and
your spouse
get your one repo of choice), then why not test as it would
be if it was
official and how you are going to work with it anyway?
In other words, I dual boot Vista and Fedora, so that is how
I test. I
don't need to waste time keeping a test version when a newer
one is out.
Are you planning on using just one machine for you both but each has
their own OS to work with? If so, then dual booting and testing that
way is fair game.
I was orginally just going to update FC7T3 on that machine, but after
the post from one of the developers about making sure it got tested
good since new drivers were in use for PATA drives, I figured
I would put both PATA and SATA on the same machine and see what
happened.
In the past, with the HDA setup I know how drives would be allocated.
Grouping them all into SD* raises some interesting questions. I am
trying to get a handle on what is going on here.
The machine in questions is a test only i386. I was thinking of next
cloning
the FC6 install I use on a day to day basis to replace the FC3T3 and
then
trying an upgrade to see how that goes.
Now that CentOS5 is released (my wife has the new x86_64 platform) the
existing
installs are just residual data. I prefer to test on a machine that
does not
have any valuable data. I was thinking of loading debian too just for
laughs.