"Heiko W.Rupp" writes:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 1998 at 08:25:00PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > It isn't the bios. It is the fact that you haven't installed new boot
> > blocks that recognise 169
> 
> Ah, ok.
> 
> But normally I should be able with that compat option to still use 165
> and have a running system - or? (yes, it is -current, not -stable,
> know this)

You would need to have the kernel compat option for 165, yes.

Perry