Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so. I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very slow and with a lot of crashes and stucks). could someone advice me to put FC1 on it and test??? May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the power of Linux in different ways ThX in advance Mohan
Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so. I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very slow and with a lot of crashes and stucks). could someone advice me to put FC1 on it and test??? May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the power of Linux in different ways
You'd probably have better luck with a more minimalist distro as a machine of that kind isn't going to have the resources required to run most of the stuff that comes with Fedora. I'm not every sure if Fedora comes with i386 packages still. (Anyone know? I don't feel like checking.)
Do you have any other Linux computers? If you do then you can run your programs on them and use your older machine as a terminal using XDMCP, VNC, or whatever. That'd mean that you could get by with a very basic install of Linux and X without needing much in the way of extra software installed. It'd also probably run your programs much faster than your 486. If you want this to be a desktop machine I'd suggest going that route.
As an alternative, if the 486 has a cd drive then I'd suggest trying a cd-based distro. You could use your hard drive just for saving your own files to. Again it might take some work to find one that'll run on such a limited machine but I expect it's doable. Look at Morphix maybe.
Michael wrote:
You'd probably have better luck with a more minimalist distro as a machine of that kind isn't going to have the resources required to run most of the stuff that comes with Fedora. I'm not every sure if Fedora comes with i386 packages still. (Anyone know? I don't feel like checking.)
All packages, except the kernel are i386. Instrucion ordering is optimized for P4 (if I recall correctly), os things will run even slower on i486. Kernel is available only as i586 (for older Pentium and AMD processors) and i686. i386 version of glibc package (starting with FC3) apperently has i486 instructions (so it is not usable on real i386, but should run just fine on an i486). For whatever reason packagers are still marking it as i386!? This glibc anomaly was introduced because i486 instructions are required for NPTL support (there's no NPTL implementation using i386-only instruction set, apperently it would be too slow to be usable?). Since glibc is distributed as only i386 (in reality i486) and i686, this way installations on older Pentium and AMD processors also get NPTL (this solved bunch of bugs with Berkely DB that simply assumes NPTL is available and packages that depend on it, such as Cyrus IMAPD, on older AMD and i586 processors).
So, if he manages to jump over kernel obstacle, he should be fine. He might try installing on newer machine, reinstalling all i686 packages with i386 versions (such as glibc) if the newer machine was i686, recompiling the kernel (he'll need i486 kernel) and than moving disc to old machine.
Basically possible, but lots of work involved.
P.S. On the sidenote, since i586 is minimal supported platform, I don't know why packages are still built as i386, and not as i586.
Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
On the sidenote, since i586 is minimal supported platform, I don't know why packages are still built as i386, and not as i586.
*Very* frequently asked question in some quarters. The short answer is that it doesn't appear to be worth it.
There were very few instructions added to the instruction set between the 386 and the 686, and apparently most of those that were added aren't the sort of instructions that noticably accelerate programs.
The exceptions, the instructions that do help performance, give better control of spinlocks and multi-threaded code. That does help, especially on multi-processor kit, but the code that uses those instructions tends to be abstracted into glibc, which *is* compiled for the different processors. [1]
In the meantime, some surprisingly recent kit (VIA CPUs, for example) don't include all the 686 support.
The Fedora development crew have repeatedly said that they would be very interested to see benchmarks that prove a particular program would benefit from different compile settings. [2] But they do expect these benchmarks to be rigourous: same kit, the same location on the drive (if relevant), system rebooted between runs, just different compile flags.
As you say, these days the programs are *optimised* for Pentium 4s: apparently this works well for most other modern x86 CPUs.
James.
[1] Remember that all these programs are cross-platform: they can't rely on running on an Intel-compatible processor, so the Right Thing is usually to push this sort of thing into an OS library.
[2] That includes things like changing -O2 (compile for speed, at least on small program segments) to -Os (compile for size, which will use caches better). Stuff that really can change performance levels.
James Wilkinson wrote:
Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
On the sidenote, since i586 is minimal supported platform, I don't know why packages are still built as i386, and not as i586.
*Very* frequently asked question in some quarters. The short answer is that it doesn't appear to be worth it.
There were very few instructions added to the instruction set between the 386 and the 686, and apparently most of those that were added aren't the sort of instructions that noticably accelerate programs.
The exceptions, the instructions that do help performance, give better control of spinlocks and multi-threaded code. That does help, especially on multi-processor kit, but the code that uses those instructions tends to be abstracted into glibc, which *is* compiled for the different processors. [1]
In the meantime, some surprisingly recent kit (VIA CPUs, for example) don't include all the 686 support.
The Fedora development crew have repeatedly said that they would be very interested to see benchmarks that prove a particular program would benefit from different compile settings. [2] But they do expect these benchmarks to be rigourous: same kit, the same location on the drive (if relevant), system rebooted between runs, just different compile flags.
As you say, these days the programs are *optimised* for Pentium 4s: apparently this works well for most other modern x86 CPUs.
James.
[1] Remember that all these programs are cross-platform: they can't rely on running on an Intel-compatible processor, so the Right Thing is usually to push this sort of thing into an OS library.
The thing is, thay haven't pushed it into OS library. And I don't see any plans on releasing those libraries in i586 versions. glibc is built as i386 and i686 only. The only package that is exception from i386/i686 rule is the kernel which is built as i586/i686 (why not build it as i386 with i486 for NPTL, instead of i586, when the rest of the system is built that way anyhow?). Because of this there were some very nasty problems in FC2 when running (some) programs that depend on Berkely DB library. Namely Cyrus IMAPD RPMs were unusable on anything but i686. I found references that for FC3, they compiled glibc with i486 instruction set to resolve the problem (however, glibc RPM still claims to be i386?!).
The problem is that NPTL is considered "must have" on Red Hat systems for some time now. NPTL is available only for i486 and above (for long time it was only i586 or even i686 and above, don't remember correctly). So there is a clash. Base build architecture (i386) can't accomodate a "must have" feature of distribution. Many people found out this the hard way when FC2 was released. Some programs simply did not work on i586. Also worth mentioning is that there will never be support for NPTL using i386-only instruction set (so it isn't something like "we'll wait until it is backported", that port is not going to happen, ever).
It would be kinda cleaner also. There would be only i586 packages, plus several core OS libraries and kernel with both i586 and i686 packages. So that would be only two architectures, instead of the current mix that contains 3 1/2 architectures: i386, glibc quazy-i386 (which is poluted with i486 instructions for NPTL support), i586 (kernel only, glibc should have been built with i586 too, but it wasn't), and i686.
As for VIA processors, I haven't suggested using i686, but i586 as base build architecture (with instruction ordering optimized for current P4s for packages that don't have i686 version, and for i586/P4 for packages that have both i586/i686 versions). Actually, in reality the result was exactly the opposite of what you suggested might happen. Because distribution was mainly built as i386, on FC2 some packages do not work on some of the supported processors. If distribution was mainly built as i586, there would be no problems.
The problem is that GCC is not (or at least wasn't when I tested it on gcc 2.96) smart enough to optimize for processor X while restricting to Y instruction set when Y is different from both X and 386. Ie if you use "-mcpu=i686 -march=i586" (ie optimize for 686 but restrict to Pentium instruction) it generates code who runs at exactly the same speed that if you had typed "-mcpu=i686 -march=i386". When I say exactly I mean within 0.1% or 0.2% margin (ie within noise limits) and for EVERY test. The usual thing when playing with compiler parms was that on at least one of my tests one of the flags providing at least a 2 or 3% difference. Not there. Complete equality. At this point the logical deduction is that gcc "downgraded" to 386 mode because it was unable to generate code using the 686 timetable and 586 instructions.
As I said I tested the above on gcc 2.96 and haven't repeated the experience on gcc 3.x
So except for marketing purposes it doesn't make sense to try to compile "normal" packages with 586 as the minimal processor. The packages where there will be a difference are those who rely either on hand-written assembler like the kernel or glibc.
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 21:34, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
James Wilkinson wrote:
Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
On the sidenote, since i586 is minimal supported platform, I don't know why packages are still built as i386, and not as i586.
*Very* frequently asked question in some quarters. The short answer is that it doesn't appear to be worth it.
There were very few instructions added to the instruction set between the 386 and the 686, and apparently most of those that were added aren't the sort of instructions that noticably accelerate programs.
The exceptions, the instructions that do help performance, give better control of spinlocks and multi-threaded code. That does help, especially on multi-processor kit, but the code that uses those instructions tends to be abstracted into glibc, which *is* compiled for the different processors. [1]
In the meantime, some surprisingly recent kit (VIA CPUs, for example) don't include all the 686 support.
The Fedora development crew have repeatedly said that they would be very interested to see benchmarks that prove a particular program would benefit from different compile settings. [2] But they do expect these benchmarks to be rigourous: same kit, the same location on the drive (if relevant), system rebooted between runs, just different compile flags.
As you say, these days the programs are *optimised* for Pentium 4s: apparently this works well for most other modern x86 CPUs.
James.
[1] Remember that all these programs are cross-platform: they can't rely on running on an Intel-compatible processor, so the Right Thing is usually to push this sort of thing into an OS library.
The thing is, thay haven't pushed it into OS library. And I don't see any plans on releasing those libraries in i586 versions. glibc is built as i386 and i686 only. The only package that is exception from i386/i686 rule is the kernel which is built as i586/i686 (why not build it as i386 with i486 for NPTL, instead of i586, when the rest of the system is built that way anyhow?). Because of this there were some very nasty problems in FC2 when running (some) programs that depend on Berkely DB library. Namely Cyrus IMAPD RPMs were unusable on anything but i686. I found references that for FC3, they compiled glibc with i486 instruction set to resolve the problem (however, glibc RPM still claims to be i386?!).
The problem is that NPTL is considered "must have" on Red Hat systems for some time now. NPTL is available only for i486 and above (for long time it was only i586 or even i686 and above, don't remember correctly). So there is a clash. Base build architecture (i386) can't accomodate a "must have" feature of distribution. Many people found out this the hard way when FC2 was released. Some programs simply did not work on i586. Also worth mentioning is that there will never be support for NPTL using i386-only instruction set (so it isn't something like "we'll wait until it is backported", that port is not going to happen, ever).
It would be kinda cleaner also. There would be only i586 packages, plus several core OS libraries and kernel with both i586 and i686 packages. So that would be only two architectures, instead of the current mix that contains 3 1/2 architectures: i386, glibc quazy-i386 (which is poluted with i486 instructions for NPTL support), i586 (kernel only, glibc should have been built with i586 too, but it wasn't), and i686.
As for VIA processors, I haven't suggested using i686, but i586 as base build architecture (with instruction ordering optimized for current P4s for packages that don't have i686 version, and for i586/P4 for packages that have both i586/i686 versions). Actually, in reality the result was exactly the opposite of what you suggested might happen. Because distribution was mainly built as i386, on FC2 some packages do not work on some of the supported processors. If distribution was mainly built as i586, there would be no problems.
-- Aleksandar Milivojevic amilivojevic@pbl.ca Pollard Banknote Limited Systems Administrator 1499 Buffalo Place Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276 Winnipeg, MB R3T 1L7
Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
The problem is that GCC is not (or at least wasn't when I tested it on gcc 2.96) smart enough to optimize for processor X while restricting to Y instruction set when Y is different from both X and 386. Ie if you use "-mcpu=i686 -march=i586" (ie optimize for 686 but restrict to Pentium instruction) it generates code who runs at exactly the same speed that if you had typed "-mcpu=i686 -march=i386". When I say exactly I mean within 0.1% or 0.2% margin (ie within noise limits) and for EVERY test. The usual thing when playing with compiler parms was that on at least one of my tests one of the flags providing at least a 2 or 3% difference. Not there. Complete equality. At this point the logical deduction is that gcc "downgraded" to 386 mode because it was unable to generate code using the 686 timetable and 586 instructions.
As I said I tested the above on gcc 2.96 and haven't repeated the experience on gcc 3.x
So except for marketing purposes it doesn't make sense to try to compile "normal" packages with 586 as the minimal processor. The packages where there will be a difference are those who rely either on hand-written assembler like the kernel or glibc.
Um. You seem to be assuming that the extra instructions in the Pentium will improve performance, and that therefore gcc is deficient. Might it not simply be that the (few) extra instructions really aren't that useful in improving performance?
(Incidentally: which CPU were you using? I understand that not all of the new instructions provide a performance benefit on later processors: they tend to get broken back down to the same micro-ops.)
The logical conclusion that Red Hat's engineers came to (and they're far more knowledgable about the whole thing than I am) is simply that none of the extra instructions that the Pentium makes available (and there aren't that many) are very useful in improving performance. The major exception comes in atomic locking instructions for NTPL. And that (for very good binary and source level compatibility reasons) is done in glibc, which *is* compiled to i586 or i686.
See, for example, https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-June/msg00232.html and linked posts.
James.
James Wilkinson wrote:
The major exception comes in atomic locking instructions for NTPL. And that (for very good binary and source level compatibility reasons) is done in glibc, which *is* compiled to i586 or i686.
Actually, glibc is combiled as i386 or i686, with i386 version using i486 instructions in NTPL related functions (so, while rpm package claims to be i386, in reality it is i486). It would probably be less complicated and cleaner if it was simply built as i586. But that is just my opinion...
I guess I was always weak in political stuff, and from what other wrote in this (and other) threads, i386 vs i586 distro seems to belong to that category.
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 05:20 -0800, Michael wrote:
Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so. I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very slow and with a lot of crashes and stucks). could someone advice me to put FC1 on it and test??? May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the power of Linux in different ways
You'd probably have better luck with a more minimalist distro as a machine of that kind isn't going to have the resources required to run most of the stuff that comes with Fedora. I'm not every sure if Fedora comes with i386 packages still. (Anyone know? I don't feel like checking.)
Well last time I checked there were not any "mainstream" distros that did (at least for 486SX) so I put FreeBSD 4.8 on my laptop to when I wanted to play with a "unix like" operating system on it.
It worked but was slow on my 486SX-33 with 24MB RAM. The last distro I had installed on it was Debian 2.2.
Regards, Paul
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 05:20 -0800, Michael wrote:
Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so. I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very slow and with a lot of crashes and stucks). could someone advice me to put FC1 on it and test??? May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the power of Linux in different ways
It should do well with a test based install of RH 7.3 or maybe even RH 9. I would not try any of the fedora installs on it, simply because of the limited memory and old processor.
Some people have gotten Fedora to work on the older and slower systems, but it takes a lot to make it work, and even more patience to put up with its speed.
RH 7.3 OTOH would work well, and if you are using it as a file server or a firewall box, can handle it well.
You'd probably have better luck with a more minimalist distro as a machine of that kind isn't going to have the resources required to run most of the stuff that comes with Fedora. I'm not every sure if Fedora comes with i386 packages still. (Anyone know? I don't feel like checking.)
Do you have any other Linux computers? If you do then you can run your programs on them and use your older machine as a terminal using XDMCP, VNC, or whatever. That'd mean that you could get by with a very basic install of Linux and X without needing much in the way of extra software installed. It'd also probably run your programs much faster than your 486. If you want this to be a desktop machine I'd suggest going that route.
As an alternative, if the 486 has a cd drive then I'd suggest trying a cd-based distro. You could use your hard drive just for saving your own files to. Again it might take some work to find one that'll run on such a limited machine but I expect it's doable. Look at Morphix maybe.
-- Michael mogmios@mlug.missouri.edu http://kavlon.org
On Sunday 30 January 2005 03:23, Kumara wrote:
Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so. I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very slow and with a lot of crashes and stucks). could someone advice me to put FC1 on it and test??? May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the power of Linux in different ways ThX in advance Mohan
It might. It CAN'T run i586 or i686 rpms though. I would advice older software, like RH6.2 (it is painful, but does at least have the kde and gnome desktop). Most kernel 2.6.x based distros only build the kernel for i586+ and that most kernel <2.6 build for i386+. Besides, old software is for old hardware and is better for low RAM and low HD space. My old i486 still runs Win95! The 'power of linux' that was written for this old thing is kernel ~1.x-2.0!
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 12:55 -0500, Steven Pasternak wrote:
It might. It CAN'T run i586 or i686 rpms though. I would advice older software, like RH6.2 (it is painful, but does at least have the kde and gnome desktop). Most kernel 2.6.x based distros only build the kernel for i586+ and that most kernel <2.6 build for i386+. Besides, old software is for old hardware and is better for low RAM and low HD space. My old i486 still runs Win95! The 'power of linux' that was written for this old thing is kernel ~1.x-2.0!
That said, it will run ALL FC3 RPMs. It will NOT run KDE, Gnome or - probably - any desktop BUT it could probably be use as a linux firewall and/or router. ________________________________________________________________________ Total Quality Management - A Commitment to Excellence http://www.TQMcube.com
Thanks a lot, i got some idea Thanks Mohan ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Cary Hart" Fedora@TQMcube.com To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" fedora-list@redhat.com Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 9:50 PM Subject: Re: Could an Intel 486 wake up with FC3
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 12:55 -0500, Steven Pasternak wrote:
It might. It CAN'T run i586 or i686 rpms though. I would advice older software, like RH6.2 (it is painful, but does at least have the kde and
gnome
desktop). Most kernel 2.6.x based distros only build the kernel for
i586+ and
that most kernel <2.6 build for i386+. Besides, old software is for old hardware and is better for low RAM and low HD space. My old i486 still
runs
Win95! The 'power of linux' that was written for this old thing is
kernel
~1.x-2.0!
That said, it will run ALL FC3 RPMs. It will NOT run KDE, Gnome or - probably - any desktop BUT it could probably be use as a linux firewall and/or router. ________________________________________________________________________ Total Quality Management - A Commitment to Excellence http://www.TQMcube.com
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Steven Pasternak wrote:
On Sunday 30 January 2005 03:23, Kumara wrote:
Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so. I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very slow and with a lot of crashes and stucks). could someone advice me to put FC1 on it and test??? May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the power of Linux in different ways ThX in advance Mohan
It might. It CAN'T run i586 or i686 rpms though. I would advice older software, like RH6.2 (it is painful, but does at least have the kde and gnome desktop). Most kernel 2.6.x based distros only build the kernel for i586+ and that most kernel <2.6 build for i386+. Besides, old software is for old hardware and is better for low RAM and low HD space. My old i486 still runs Win95! The 'power of linux' that was written for this old thing is kernel ~1.x-2.0!
I have a 486 laptop running RH7.3 as a firewall. It's quite happy running kernel-2.4.20-37.7.legacy, iptables, no X. That version of GNOME was the last "lightweight" one, though. If you need X on your hardware, XFCE is the way to go. There are other distros that are designed for older/slower hardware too, but I couldn't refer you to one at this point.
See also www.rule-project.org. They have low-memory installers for RH8 and RH9. They are supposed to be working on an FC-based version, but I haven't seen much progress recently.
You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without rebuilding pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will abandon even that.
Thank you very much for your reply Mohan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Saltzman" mjs@ces.clemson.edu To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" fedora-list@redhat.com Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:01 PM Subject: Re: Could an Intel 486 wake up with FC3
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Steven Pasternak wrote:
On Sunday 30 January 2005 03:23, Kumara wrote:
Could somebody advice me if it is a good idea to do so. I have an Intel 486 DX4-S mechine with 504MBs of HDD and 16MB's of RAM. it is hardly running windows 98 and Internet. (very
slow
and with a lot of crashes and stucks). could someone advice me to put
FC1
on it and test??? May I try it? hope your advice from the list. I want to enjoy the power
of
Linux in different ways ThX in advance Mohan
It might. It CAN'T run i586 or i686 rpms though. I would advice older software, like RH6.2 (it is painful, but does at least have the kde and
gnome
desktop). Most kernel 2.6.x based distros only build the kernel for
i586+ and
that most kernel <2.6 build for i386+. Besides, old software is for old hardware and is better for low RAM and low HD space. My old i486 still
runs
Win95! The 'power of linux' that was written for this old thing is
kernel
~1.x-2.0!
I have a 486 laptop running RH7.3 as a firewall. It's quite happy running kernel-2.4.20-37.7.legacy, iptables, no X. That version of GNOME was the last "lightweight" one, though. If you need X on your hardware, XFCE is the way to go. There are other distros that are designed for older/slower hardware too, but I couldn't refer you to one at this point.
See also www.rule-project.org. They have low-memory installers for RH8 and RH9. They are supposed to be working on an FC-based version, but I haven't seen much progress recently.
You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without rebuilding pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will abandon even that.
-- Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences mjs AT clemson DOT edu http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without rebuilding pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will abandon even that.
I doubt it. Apparently at least some of the VIA CPUs that are being sold today don't count as a 686 as far as gcc is concerned.
Incidentally, a 486SX doesn't include an FPU, and Fedora kernels (not surprisingly) don't include emulation code. One other thing for the Original Poster to remember.
James.
James Wilkinson wrote:
Incidentally, a 486SX doesn't include an FPU, and Fedora kernels (not surprisingly) don't include emulation code. One other thing for the Original Poster to remember.
He'll have to recompile kernel anyhow, and FPU emulation code is part of kernel. However, OP had 486, so he'll be fine with or without emulation code enabled in kernel. There was somebody else who replied who had 486SX in an laptop.
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, James Wilkinson wrote:
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without rebuilding pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will abandon even that.
I doubt it. Apparently at least some of the VIA CPUs that are being sold today don't count as a 686 as far as gcc is concerned.
You're right, I misread the devel kernel changelog. It's i586smp that's being dropped from core.
Incidentally, a 486SX doesn't include an FPU, and Fedora kernels (not surprisingly) don't include emulation code. One other thing for the Original Poster to remember.
James.
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, James Wilkinson wrote:
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without rebuilding pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will abandon even that.
I doubt it. Apparently at least some of the VIA CPUs that are being sold today don't count as a 686 as far as gcc is concerned.
You're right, I misread the devel kernel changelog. It's i586smp that's being dropped from core.
Incidentally, a 486SX doesn't include an FPU, and Fedora kernels (not surprisingly) don't include emulation code. One other thing for the Original Poster to remember.
James.
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. The exchanges were quite informative.
On Monday 31 January 2005 02:30 pm, James Wilkinson wrote:
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
You can't install FC on anything less than an i586 now without rebuilding pieces of it (no i386 kernel, for example), and it looks like FC4 will abandon even that.
I doubt it. Apparently at least some of the VIA CPUs that are being sold today don't count as a 686 as far as gcc is concerned.
Incidentally, a 486SX doesn't include an FPU, and Fedora kernels (not surprisingly) don't include emulation code. One other thing for the Original Poster to remember.
James.
Minor point, but the OP said that he has a 486DX4-S cpu, which was a far more powerful critter than the 486SX stuff. The 486DX4-S was an AMD product; the "S" indicates that the cpu used intel-style power management (whatever that means).
I once had a 486DX4-120 on an AOpen motherboard, and it was stronger than houses -- virtually crash free under DR-DOS, Windows 3.11 and even Win 95. It benchmarked at about the same as a Pentium 90. I suppose that it is possible to run one of the text-only 486-specific Linux distros on it, but it would take far more patience than I have.
-- cmg
-
Aleksandar Milivojevic -
Carroll Grigsby -
David Cary Hart -
David Curry -
James Wilkinson -
Jean Francois Martinez -
Jeff Vian -
Kumara Jayaweera -
Matthew Saltzman -
Michael -
Paul -
Steven Pasternak