They're confusing the 486SX/DX difference with the 386SX/DX difference.
In the 386, it was the bus. 16bit/32bit
In the 486, it was the FPU. NoFPU/FPU
Intel re-used the same suffix from the 386's, but changed the meaning.
As I can see from this discussion, the confusion continues to this day.
Th
On Wednesday 16 October 2002 04:05 am, rowland wrote:
> dont see how 486sx could have 'skinnier bus' seeing as how the same
> motherboard socket could take either a sx or dx chip
There were two different 486SX packages, one designed to be a proper SX like
the 386SX, the other basically a de-nutt
George Mitchell wrote on Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 08:37:48AM -0700 :
> Excuse me for dragging this issue around one more time, but isn't
> Walmart selling VIA C3 machines with Mandrake preinstalled? If so, were
> these machines introduced with 9.0 or 8.2? If they were introduced with
AMD Athlon,
On Tuesday 15 Oct 2002 2:56 am, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 October 2002 04:18 am, rowland wrote:
> > On Monday 14 Oct 2002 11:23 am, J. Greenlees wrote:
> > > Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> > > > also, the 486sx (at least the first ones) did has a coprocessor; it
> > > > was disabled but was sti
Excuse me for dragging this issue around one more time, but isn't
Walmart selling VIA C3 machines with Mandrake preinstalled? If so, were
these machines introduced with 9.0 or 8.2? If they were introduced with
8.2 and buyers attempt to upgrade to 9.0 this could become a real pain
for Mandrak
Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > also, the 486sx (at least the first ones) did has a
> > > > coprocessor; it was disabled but was still there (though i
> > > > don't rember if it was missing pins or some silicon hack).
> > >
> > > actually, it was a bad bit of circuit if I remember
Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tuesday 15 October 2002 04:18 am, rowland wrote:
>> On Monday 14 Oct 2002 11:23 am, J. Greenlees wrote:
>> > Thierry Vignaud wrote:
>> > > also, the 486sx (at least the first ones) did has a coprocessor; it
>> > > was disabled but was still there (though
On Tuesday 15 October 2002 04:18 am, rowland wrote:
> On Monday 14 Oct 2002 11:23 am, J. Greenlees wrote:
> > Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> > > also, the 486sx (at least the first ones) did has a coprocessor; it
> > > was disabled but was still there (though i don't rember if it was
> > > missing pins
On Monday 14 Oct 2002 11:23 am, J. Greenlees wrote:
> Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> snip
>
> > also, the 486sx (at least the first ones) did has a coprocessor; it
> > was disabled but was still there (though i don't rember if it was
> > missing pins or some silicon hack).
>
> actually, it was a bad bit
Levi Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri Oct 11 12:19 +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> > "James Sparenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > (btw RH's i386 compiled kernels won't run on a real i386 ... only i486
> >
> > hum IIRC they are made for 386-DX (with a math coprocessor
Thierry Vignaud wrote:
snip
> also, the 486sx (at least the first ones) did has a coprocessor; it
> was disabled but was still there (though i don't rember if it was
> missing pins or some silicon hack).
>
>
>
actually, it was a bad bit of circuit if I remember correctly, the co
pro was c
Levi Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > (btw RH's i386 compiled kernels won't run on a real i386 ... only i486
> >
> > hum IIRC they are made for 386-DX (with a math coprocessor), did
>> yours have one? if you run a 386-SX you don't have one.
>
> pedantic mode on:
> the 386DX did not have
On Fri Oct 11 22:11 -0400, Yura Gusev wrote:
> Levi Ramsey said:
>
> >> > (btw RH's i386 compiled kernels won't run on a real i386 ... only
> >> > i486
> >>
> >> hum IIRC they are made for 386-DX (with a math coprocessor), did yours
> >> have one? if you run a 386-SX you don't have one.
> >
> > pe
Levi Ramsey said:
>> > (btw RH's i386 compiled kernels won't run on a real i386 ... only
>> > i486
>>
>> hum IIRC they are made for 386-DX (with a math coprocessor), did yours
>> have one? if you run a 386-SX you don't have one.
>
> pedantic mode on:
> the 386DX did not have a math coprocessor (th
On Fri Oct 11 12:19 +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> "James Sparenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > (btw RH's i386 compiled kernels won't run on a real i386 ... only i486
>
> hum IIRC they are made for 386-DX (with a math coprocessor), did
> yours have one? if you run a 386-SX you don'
"James Sparenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (btw RH's i386 compiled kernels won't run on a real i386 ... only i486
hum IIRC they are made for 386-DX (with a math coprocessor), did
yours have one? if you run a 386-SX you don't have one.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.c
ooops sorry but still the point is pretty much the same. (I hope)
James
> On Friday 11 October 2002 07:54 am, James Sparenberg wrote:
> > (Like 300 windows drivers
> > for all the tulip based nic cards vs one on Unix.)
>
> Two on Linux. As usual, some of the clones are a bit... odd.
>
> Chee
On Friday 11 October 2002 07:54 am, James Sparenberg wrote:
> (Like 300 windows drivers
> for all the tulip based nic cards vs one on Unix.)
Two on Linux. As usual, some of the clones are a bit... odd.
Cheers; Leon
> Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > surely this should be something that is done after installation.
If you are
> > > going to say 'so people who have i686 machines will have
faster/better
> > > machines' then it should also optimise for athlons as well!!!
yes but what is importa
On Thu Oct 10 12:29 +0200, Florent BERANGER wrote:
> A simple question :
> is anyone can do/maintain an unofficial/official (could be automatic, as for i586)
>i686
> version of cooker with src.rpm ?
> And, if it's possible, how-to ?
> What do you think about that ? Will it be a problem with mirro
On Thursday 10 October 2002 12:13, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> Nope, the problem is more of the performance you gain with that,
> compared to the diskspace it uses. And gentoo or mandrake users
> compiling all for athlon target seem to report that it doesn't
> make a significant difference.
Wha
Le Jeudi 10 Octobre 2002 12:13, Guillaume Cottenceau a écrit :
> Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > surely this should be something that is done after installation. If you
> > > are going to say 'so people who have i686 machines will have
> > > faster/better machines' then it should also
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > surely this should be something that is done after installation. If you are
> > going to say 'so people who have i686 machines will have faster/better
> > machines' then it should also optimise for athlons as well!!!
>
> I'm sure if someone submitted a
On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 07:40, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> rowland penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > mandrake is advertised as being i586 (or pentium) compatible not i686
> > (celeron, p2,p3,p4) so why have a directory named i686?. redhat 8.0 loads
>
> to optimize better for i686 and sup
Levi Ramsey wrote on Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 06:15:58PM -0400 :
>
> The underlying flaw is that the C3 misreports itself. That is a big
> no-no.
I was privy to a conversation that a kernel developer made the following
comments:
Oh, I point out that C3 really is:
* an i686 [cmov is actually option
On Thu Oct 10 19:03 +0100, rowland wrote:
> everybody who has an i686 machine is missing the point. Every rpm on the
> installation cd's are for i568, so why is there a directory named i686. the
> fact is that if the rpms are for i586 then the kernel should be for i586 and
> anybody who has a i
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 08:27:26PM +0100, rowland wrote:
> I understand (and I understood this from the start) that the bug is in the way > the
>C3 is reported, I also understand that mandrake 9.0 is advertised as
> being for i586! In which case, why is there the ability tp optomise for i686,
>
I understand (and I understood this from the start) that the bug is in the way
the C3 is reported, I also understand that mandrake 9.0 is advertised as
being for i586! In which case, why is there the ability tp optomise for i686,
surely this should be something that is done after installation.
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 08:14:48PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> rowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tuesday 08 Oct 2002 10:37 pm, Ben Reser wrote:
> > everybody who has an i686 machine is missing the point. Every rpm on the
Just to clarify I didn't write that. rowland doesn't
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:03:53PM +0100, rowland wrote:
> everybody who has an i686 machine is missing the point. Every rpm on the
> installation cd's are for i568, so why is there a directory named i686. the
> fact is that if the rpms are for i586 then the kernel should be for i586 and
> anyb
rowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 08 Oct 2002 10:37 pm, Ben Reser wrote:
> everybody who has an i686 machine is missing the point. Every rpm on the
actually it's rather "you are missing the point", it seems.
> installation cd's are for i568, so why is there a directory named i68
On Tuesday 08 Oct 2002 10:37 pm, Ben Reser wrote:
everybody who has an i686 machine is missing the point. Every rpm on the
installation cd's are for i568, so why is there a directory named i686. the
fact is that if the rpms are for i586 then the kernel should be for i586 and
anybody who has a i
rowland penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> mandrake is advertised as being i586 (or pentium) compatible not i686
> (celeron, p2,p3,p4) so why have a directory named i686?. redhat 8.0 loads
to optimize better for i686 and superior processors, what else?
it's not incompatible with being i586 co
After installing with the delete /mnt/lib/i686 trick it does work fine.
Enlightment is a bit on the sluggish side on it but it is not really for
this purpose..
Has been runnign since this morning acting as traffic logger and running
tcpdump for hours .
going to "play" setting it up for my ISP
Got it to install here via the graphical method. by moving /mnt/lib/i686
to /mnt/lib/i686.no On disk 3 and no problems so far.
James
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 12:35, James Sparenberg wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 10:32, rowland wrote:
> > On Monday 07 October 2002 6:04 pm, you wrote:
> > this is
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 19:47, Igor Izyumin wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 October 2002 04:15 pm, rowland penny wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 Oct 2002 8:35 pm, James Sparenberg wrote:
> > > It's part of glibc and if you have a 686 cpu (like a celeron) it does
> > > get used for the kernel. (Even in RH they do
On Wednesday 09 October 2002 04:15 pm, rowland penny wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 Oct 2002 8:35 pm, James Sparenberg wrote:
> > It's part of glibc and if you have a 686 cpu (like a celeron) it does
> > get used for the kernel. (Even in RH they do this)
> >
> > James
>
> mandrake is advertised as being i
On Wednesday 09 October 2002 01:32 am, rowland wrote:
> All this does beg the question, why does a distribution claiming to be i586
> compatible, have a directory named i686?
To get better performance on a '686. If the Via chip didn't lie about it's
capabilities, it would all work sweetly, too.
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 10:15:20PM +0100, rowland penny wrote:
> mandrake is advertised as being i586 (or pentium) compatible not i686
> (celeron, p2,p3,p4) so why have a directory named i686?. redhat 8.0 loads
> onto a epia based system without any trouble so why doesn't mandrake!
Well from wh
On Tuesday 08 Oct 2002 8:35 pm, James Sparenberg wrote:
>
>
> It's part of glibc and if you have a 686 cpu (like a celeron) it does
> get used for the kernel. (Even in RH they do this)
>
> James
>
mandrake is advertised as being i586 (or pentium) compatible not i686
(celeron, p2,p3,p4) so why hav
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 10:32, rowland wrote:
> On Monday 07 October 2002 6:04 pm, you wrote:
> this is what I had to do to install 9.0 onto a epia 800 C3 motherboard
>
> do a text install, as packages start to install watch for glibc, when you see
> this, switch to console (alt + F2), type "rm -r
On Tue Oct 08 0:57 +0200, mhnix wrote:
> My procedure:
> - At boot choose F1
> - type "text" to choose install mode
> - when install starts press Alt-F2 right after glib is installed
You should be able to get away with a graphical install, but pressing
Ctrl-Alt-F2
--
Levi Ramsey
[EMAIL PROTECT
On Monday 07 October 2002 6:04 pm, you wrote:
this is what I had to do to install 9.0 onto a epia 800 C3 motherboard
do a text install, as packages start to install watch for glibc, when you see
this, switch to console (alt + F2), type "rm -r /mnt/lib/i686" and press
return/enter. It should now
"Jesper Krogh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After all packages has been installed , press crtl + F to
> get to the shell, /lib/i686 exists, remove it and all the rest works fine.
No it's too late, because the %post scripts of packages will fail
during install.
You need, either to go to console
mhnix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My procedure:
> - At boot choose F1
> - type "text" to choose install mode
what's the connection between via c3 and doing text install?
> - when install starts press Alt-F2 right after glib is installed
not glib, glibc. they are pretty different packages.
>
Hello Guillaume,
Tuesday, October 8, 2002, 3:53:31 PM, you wrote:
GC> mhnix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My procedure:
>> - At boot choose F1
>> - type "text" to choose install mode
GC> what's the connection between via c3 and doing text install?
I haven't figured out how to switch console i
Mikkel Højer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> GC> what's the connection between via c3 and doing text install?
> I haven't figured out how to switch console in graphic mode.
Ctrl Alt F2.
[...]
> GC> "about 2 minutes" :). as my previous message tells, I think this
> GC> method is not very
Todd Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> rowland wrote on Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 10:25:44PM +0100 :
> > On Sunday 06 October 2002 12:52 pm, you wrote:
> > why does redhat 8.0 work but mandrake 9.0 does not? obviously someone must
>
> RedHat is compiled for i386. Mandrake is compiled for i586. T
Bernard Varaine sagde:
>
>>
>> I have just done it, now Mandrake 9.0 installs fine on my VIA C3:
>> [root@localhost root]# cat /proc/cpuinfo
>> processor : 0
>> vendor_id : CentaurHauls
>> cpu family : 6
>> model : 5
>> model name : VIA Ezra
>> stepping: 8
>
> I have just done it, now Mandrake 9.0 installs fine on my VIA C3:
> [root@localhost root]# cat /proc/cpuinfo
> processor : 0
> vendor_id : CentaurHauls
> cpu family : 6
> model : 5
> model name : VIA Ezra
> stepping: 8
> cpu MHz : 930.986
> cac
Jesper love it!! I'm heading home from the office and can't wait to try
it out. w h...
James
>
> James Sparenberg sagde:
> > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 07:58, Jose Antonio Becerra Permuy wrote:
> >>It seems that the problem is that glibc package from Mandrake 9.0 has
> >> so
måndagen den 7 oktober 2002 19.26 skrev Todd Lyons:
> rowland wrote on Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 10:25:44PM +0100 :
> > On Sunday 06 October 2002 12:52 pm, you wrote:
> > why does redhat 8.0 work but mandrake 9.0 does not? obviously someone
> > must
>
> RedHat is compiled for i386. Mandrake is compile
Success here as well:
[root@sweatbloodtears root]# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : CentaurHauls
cpu family : 6
model : 5
model name : VIA Ezra
stepping: 8
cpu MHz : 800.047
cache size : 64 KB
fdiv_bug: no
hlt_bug : n
* Stardate: 2002-10-07 22:37
* Incoming subspace signal from "Jesper Krogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" :
>
> James Sparenberg sagde:
> > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 07:58, Jose Antonio Becerra Permuy wrote:
> >>It seems that the problem is that glibc package from Mandrake 9.0 has
> >> some
> >> libraries
James Sparenberg sagde:
> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 07:58, Jose Antonio Becerra Permuy wrote:
>> It seems that the problem is that glibc package from Mandrake 9.0 has
>> some
>> libraries optimized for i686 (with the CMOV instruction) in the
>> directory /lib/i686 and that the Via C3 cpu (which
rowland wrote on Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 10:25:44PM +0100 :
> On Sunday 06 October 2002 12:52 pm, you wrote:
> why does redhat 8.0 work but mandrake 9.0 does not? obviously someone must
RedHat is compiled for i386. Mandrake is compiled for i586. That
should illuminate a little bit of the problem.
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 07:58, Jose Antonio Becerra Permuy wrote:
> It seems that the problem is that glibc package from Mandrake 9.0 has some
> libraries optimized for i686 (with the CMOV instruction) in the directory
> /lib/i686 and that the Via C3 cpu (which has not that instruction) is
> d
It seems that the problem is that glibc package from Mandrake 9.0 has some
libraries optimized for i686 (with the CMOV instruction) in the directory
/lib/i686 and that the Via C3 cpu (which has not that instruction) is
detected as i686. So, the solution is to delete that directory as soon
Same experiences here...
I have told Todd in an mandrakeexpert.com incident that I'm going to
send the developers a board in order to get this solved.
A couple of questions before I call UPS:
Users: Has anyone done this before and what should I expect will
happen? (patch, special build/release
Can I third this motion. I've installed rh7.1,2,3 on this mobo/cpu
combo SuSe 8.0 all without a problem. 8.2 goes in smoothly but isn't
optimal for the CPU When I try to build the new kernel from source
the changes (such as how docs get created) require things that I can't
install on 8.2 ...
Can I third this motion. I've installed rh7.1,2,3 on this mobo/cpu
combo SuSe 8.0 all without a problem. 8.2 goes in smoothly but isn't
optimal for the CPU When I try to build the new kernel from source
the changes (such as how docs get created) require things that I can't
install on 8.2 ...
On Sunday 06 October 2002 12:52 pm, you wrote:
why does redhat 8.0 work but mandrake 9.0 does not? obviously someone must
know. After using mandrake from 7.0 I find that I must now either switch to
redhat or suse or in fact anybodies distribution to use linux on my mini-itx
board . would anybod
I will also :-)
Bernard
rowland wrote:
> On Sunday 06 October 2002 12:52 am, you wrote:
> thanks, I did not think it was right, but had to check. now if someone could
> just help by pointing me in the right direction of why 9.0 will not work, I
> would be most gratefull :-)
> rowland.
>
>>r
On Sunday 06 October 2002 12:52 am, you wrote:
thanks, I did not think it was right, but had to check. now if someone could
just help by pointing me in the right direction of why 9.0 will not work, I
would be most gratefull :-)
rowland.
> rowland wrote on Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 05:22:20PM +0100 :
rowland wrote on Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 05:22:20PM +0100 :
> On Saturday 05 October 2002 1:45 pm, you wrote:
> I cannot get it to work, but have now been told on linitx.com forum that the
> reason is the kernel in 9.0 is for an i686, is this right ?
No, it was compiled *ON* an i686 *FOR* i586.
Bl
On Saturday 05 October 2002 1:45 pm, you wrote:
I cannot get it to work, but have now been told on linitx.com forum that the
reason is the kernel in 9.0 is for an i686, is this right ?
rowland penny
> On Saturday 05 October 2002 10:57 am, you wrote:
> dont bother, it does the same for me, tried
On Saturday 05 October 2002 10:57 am, you wrote:
dont bother, it does the same for me, tried fresh install, upgrade over 8.2
and just packages upgrade, but I get the same answer as bernard everytime ,
now trying upgrading kde etc seperatlly to see where the problem lies
rowland penny
> On Sat,
just bought a VIA EPIA 800 to build a small Linux box but I am getting
errors when trying to install 9.0 RC2.
Install seems to run smoothly, (just one error one copying to Xfree
files) goes to setting up network and recognise the onboard NIC, setup
users but then when displaying the services t
68 matches
Mail list logo
