Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

dmaxel · 2011-08-19 20:47:03

Hey everyone,

I'm trying to install Arch on my new computer, which has an ASUS Crosshair V Formula motherboard. This MB uses an UEFI BIOS, so apparently I won't be able to boot off of the official Arch ISO because GRUB doesn't support it. Before I try Archboot, which apparently should be able to do it, what is different about it than the official ISO? Is it just like an official ISO, except with newer stuff on it and well..not official?

Thanks!

EDIT: Just so you know, why I do try to boot from the official Arch ISO, it boots, until it says that each core of my CPU is unresponsive, then it reboots. Hope that helps.

Last edited by dmaxel (2011-08-19 20:48:53)

Pierre · 2011-08-19 20:48:55

You don't need a UEFI capable boot loader to boot. I'd even suggest to not use one as BIOS mode is more releiable and has less problems.

ANOKNUSA · 2011-08-19 21:30:34

Archboot is very similar to the official installer, with just a couple differences. For one thing, package selection if performing a net install allows you to select more than the base and base-devel groups. You get your choice of bootloader and, by default, I believe fstab is created using UUID rather than device or partition label settings. Other than that, it's pretty much the same. The only major advantage it's given me is the ability to use the installer simply to reinstall grub without manually using chroot.

dmaxel · 2011-08-19 21:44:16

Pierre wrote:

You don't need a UEFI capable boot loader to boot. I'd even suggest to not use one as BIOS mode is more releiable and has less problems.

Hmm, then what could I do so that the installer at least boots? This problem is really strange for me.

ANOKNUSA wrote:

Archboot is very similar to the official installer, with just a couple differences. For one thing, package selection if performing a net install allows you to select more than the base and base-devel groups. You get your choice of bootloader and, by default, I believe fstab is created using UUID rather than device or partition label settings. Other than that, it's pretty much the same. The only major advantage it's given me is the ability to use the installer simply to reinstall grub without manually using chroot.

Oh I see! If it's pretty much the same then, that's good. I tend to like "official" things better, or those that are at least very close to official.

Mr.Elendig · 2011-08-20 02:16:36

The 2010.05 image might be too old to support the sata controller etc on the card, so you probably want either archboot or the releng testisos.

dmaxel · 2011-08-20 02:18:20

Mr.Elendig wrote:

The 2010.05 image might be too old to support the sata controller etc on the card, so you probably want either archboot or the releng testisos.

I tried all three of those, and they all have the same problem.

Inxsible · 2011-08-20 04:51:23

try the latest one which released yesterday -- 2011.08.19

dmaxel · 2011-08-20 04:53:15

Inxsible wrote:

try the latest one which released yesterday -- 2011.08.19

One of the three that I tried was that one.

Mr.Elendig · 2011-08-20 11:15:30

If you can get the live cd from some other distro to boot then you can always chroot into the arch install image and then install, in case all else fails.

dmaxel · 2011-08-20 18:14:27

Mr.Elendig wrote:

If you can get the live cd from some other distro to boot then you can always chroot into the arch install image and then install, in case all else fails.

That's a good idea, but I'm not quite sure if the problem is just with the LiveCD or with the distro itself. Otherwise I would install it, try to reboot into it, and still fail.

tpowa · 2011-08-23 15:12:10

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … version.29

Arch Linux

#1 2011-08-19 20:47:03

Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

#2 2011-08-19 20:48:55

Re: Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

#3 2011-08-19 21:30:34

Re: Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

#4 2011-08-19 21:44:16

Re: Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

#5 2011-08-20 02:16:36

Re: Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

#6 2011-08-20 02:18:20

Re: Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

#7 2011-08-20 04:51:23

Re: Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

#8 2011-08-20 04:53:15

Re: Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

#9 2011-08-20 11:15:30

Re: Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

#10 2011-08-20 18:14:27

Re: Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

#11 2011-08-23 15:12:10

Re: Official Arch ISO vs. Archboot?

Board footer