Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-25 Thread Mark Allums
On 2/25/2010 11:05 PM, Peter Tenenbaum wrote: Mark -- thanks for the warning about the limitations of the built-in video. I do intend to have Windows 7 on this computer as well, inside of a vmware cage. Based on the discussion, I will plan to press ahead with an Intel motherboard and use onboar

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-25 Thread Peter Tenenbaum
Mark -- thanks for the warning about the limitations of the built-in video. I do intend to have Windows 7 on this computer as well, inside of a vmware cage. Based on the discussion, I will plan to press ahead with an Intel motherboard and use onboard video as Plan A. If that proves inadequate, I

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-25 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Mark Allums put forth on 2/25/2010 1:23 AM: > On 2/25/2010 12:49 AM, Matthew Moore wrote: >> On Wednesday February 24 2010 11:14:19 pm Stan Hoeppner wrote: >>> Mark Allums put forth on 2/25/2010 12:04 AM: On 2/23/2010 11:20 PM, Peter Tenenbaum wrote: > OK, you've convinced me to go with th

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-24 Thread Mark Allums
On 2/25/2010 12:49 AM, Matthew Moore wrote: On Wednesday February 24 2010 11:14:19 pm Stan Hoeppner wrote: Mark Allums put forth on 2/25/2010 12:04 AM: On 2/23/2010 11:20 PM, Peter Tenenbaum wrote: OK, you've convinced me to go with the Intel motherboard. Thanks for all the tips! -PT Don't

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-24 Thread Matthew Moore
On Wednesday February 24 2010 11:14:19 pm Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Mark Allums put forth on 2/25/2010 12:04 AM: > > On 2/23/2010 11:20 PM, Peter Tenenbaum wrote: > >> OK, you've convinced me to go with the Intel motherboard. Thanks for > >> all the tips! > >> > >> -PT > > > > Don't go with the Intel

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-24 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Mark Allums put forth on 2/25/2010 12:04 AM: > On 2/23/2010 11:20 PM, Peter Tenenbaum wrote: >> OK, you've convinced me to go with the Intel motherboard. Thanks for >> all the tips! >> >> -PT > > Don't go with the Intel MB unless it will only ever be used for Linux. > If it might be used for Wind

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-24 Thread Mark Allums
On 2/23/2010 11:20 PM, Peter Tenenbaum wrote: OK, you've convinced me to go with the Intel motherboard. Thanks for all the tips! -PT Don't go with the Intel MB unless it will only ever be used for Linux. If it might be used for Windows, reconsider. Mark Allums -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-23 Thread Peter Tenenbaum
OK, you've convinced me to go with the Intel motherboard. Thanks for all the tips! -PT

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-23 Thread Mark Allums
On 2/23/2010 12:43 AM, Jacek Politowski wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:32:55PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: It's true, you can have large memory with i386, but why? To have still the most compatible system? Some legacy apps may still be available only as 32-bit. Theoretically most of the 32

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-23 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
On Tuesday 23 February 2010 09:40:10 Stan Hoeppner wrote: > It's a crappy system. Layers of additional complexity > and breakage just to deal with the politics of "free". This is one of the > many reasons I roll my own kernels from kernel.org source. I love Debian, > but I don't care for the Deb

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-23 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Johan Kullstam put forth on 2/23/2010 7:26 AM: > After having trouble with the Realtek motherboard built-in ethernet, I > just sprung for a PCI Intel ethernet. They are only like $30. Goto Newegg and look at all the cards. You can get a PCI GigE Realtek card for $7. Seven f--king USD. That's

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-23 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. put forth on 2/23/2010 7:22 AM: > While it could happen in the future, there's no system in place (AFAIK) for > the system to recommend certain packages based on the user's hardware > profile. > It is very easy to be missing the firmware because you a missing a package.

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-23 Thread Johan Kullstam
Stan Hoeppner writes: > Peter Tenenbaum put forth on 2/21/2010 10:01 PM: >> Stan -- >> >> It sounds like, if the Realtek drivers are not present on the Debian >> distribution, I have at least two options: going to the Realtek site and >> downloading their linux 64 bit drivers, or compiling my o

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-23 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
In <4b83a91b.8040...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. put forth on 2/22/2010 1:01 PM: >> So, non-free firmware is normally moved to non-free instead of being >> dropped from Debian entirely for many years now. Drivers that were >> previously dropped because of non-f

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-23 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Peter Tenenbaum put forth on 2/21/2010 10:01 PM: > Stan -- > > It sounds like, if the Realtek drivers are not present on the Debian > distribution, I have at least two options: going to the Realtek site and > downloading their linux 64 bit drivers, or compiling my own kernel from > source on kern

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-23 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. put forth on 2/22/2010 1:01 PM: > So, non-free firmware is normally moved to non-free instead of being dropped > from Debian entirely for many years now. Drivers that were previously > dropped > because of non-free firmware might be added back in, if they can be modified

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-22 Thread Jacek Politowski
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:32:55PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: >It's true, you can have large memory with i386, but why? To have still the most compatible system? Some legacy apps may still be available only as 32-bit. Theoretically most of the 32-bit software should run fine on 64-bit kernel wit

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-22 Thread Mark Allums
On 2/22/2010 7:44 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: In<4b832dbb.5050...@allums.com>, Mark Allums wrote: On 2/22/2010 6:19 PM, Johan Kullstam wrote: Mark Allums writes: AMD64 is the designation for the 64-bit chip architecture, not the actual chip manufacturer. AMD devised it, and Intel did

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-22 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
In <4b832dbb.5050...@allums.com>, Mark Allums wrote: >On 2/22/2010 6:19 PM, Johan Kullstam wrote: >> Mark Allums writes: >>> AMD64 is the designation for the 64-bit chip architecture, not the >>> actual chip manufacturer. AMD devised it, and Intel did the sensible >>> thing and copied it when the

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-22 Thread Mark Allums
On 2/22/2010 6:19 PM, Johan Kullstam wrote: Mark Allums writes: If the MB uses the Intel ICH10 Southbridge, the SATA, at least, will work. If the Northbridge is Intel, as it virtually *must* be with the Core i5, the GPU will be okay. If the GPU is external, then buying an AMD/ATI or NVIDIA c

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-22 Thread Johan Kullstam
Mark Allums writes: > On 2/20/2010 5:18 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> Peter Tenenbaum put forth on 2/20/2010 4:51 PM: >>> Hello there -- >>> >>> I am planning to assemble a new computer for my home, and to run debian >>> linux on it. I'm planning to use an Intel Core i5-660 CPU in this >>> compute

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-22 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
On Monday 22 February 2010 12:25:38 Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. put forth on 2/22/2010 10:05 AM: > >> [...] any software that doesn't meet the "Free" > >> criteria isn't included by default. For kernel drivers, this creates a > >> huge problem. There is no way to include "non-fr

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-22 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. put forth on 2/22/2010 10:05 AM: >> [...] any software that doesn't meet the "Free" >> criteria isn't included by default. For kernel drivers, this creates a >> huge problem. There is no way to include "non-free" in your Debian kernel >> like you do in >> /apt/sources.list

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-22 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
In <4b821e8a.4040...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >Peter Tenenbaum put forth on 2/21/2010 10:01 PM: >> Stan -- >> >> It sounds like, if the Realtek drivers are not present on the Debian >> distribution. > > [...] any software that doesn't meet the "Free" > criteria isn't included by def

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-21 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Peter Tenenbaum put forth on 2/21/2010 10:01 PM: > Stan -- > > It sounds like, if the Realtek drivers are not present on the Debian > distribution, I have at least two options: going to the Realtek site and > downloading their linux 64 bit drivers, or compiling my own kernel from > source on kern

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-21 Thread Mark Allums
On 2/21/2010 11:35 PM, Kelly Harding wrote: My understanding was that USB3.0 was supported by Linux before any other OS, and it is meant to be backwards compatible with USB1.1 and USB2.0 anyhow, so I don't think you'll hit problems there. Besides USB3.0 is still fairly new, so it will take time

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-21 Thread Kelly Harding
My understanding was that USB3.0 was supported by Linux before any other OS, and it is meant to be backwards compatible with USB1.1 and USB2.0 anyhow, so I don't think you'll hit problems there. Besides USB3.0 is still fairly new, so it will take time for there to be devices on the market etc, by

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-21 Thread Mark Allums
On 2/21/2010 10:01 PM, Peter Tenenbaum wrote: Stan -- It sounds like, if the Realtek drivers are not present on the Debian distribution, I have at least two options: going to the Realtek site and downloading their linux 64 bit drivers, or compiling my own kernel from source on kernel.org

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-21 Thread Peter Tenenbaum
Stan -- It sounds like, if the Realtek drivers are not present on the Debian distribution, I have at least two options: going to the Realtek site and downloading their linux 64 bit drivers, or compiling my own kernel from source on kernel.org. Does that sound about right? As far as video cards

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-21 Thread Peter Tenenbaum
Mark -- I'm not expecting to be too into 3-D effects, so I'll plan on using the Debian drivers for the video. Thanks for the tip about ASUS, I'll look at their motherboards for my preferred CPU. The Gigabyte does indeed have a large number of USB 2 ports (8 on the back panel, with support for up

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-21 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Mark Allums put forth on 2/21/2010 5:52 PM: > Realtek audio is covered. I can't speak to Realtek LAN. P55 is the > very latest Intel Northbridge. I don't know if X servers or drivers yet > exist for the version of it that supports the Intel GPU, but I'm sure > that they will exist shortly if th

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-21 Thread Mark Allums
On 2/21/2010 5:11 PM, Peter Tenenbaum wrote: Mark -- thanks for the information! Your explanation of IA64 vs AMD64 is about what I thought the situation was, but it never hurts to check. As far as hardware is concerned: I'm planning to use a Gigabyte GA-P55-USB3 motherboard, which in turn uses

Re: Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-21 Thread Peter Tenenbaum
Mark -- thanks for the information! Your explanation of IA64 vs AMD64 is about what I thought the situation was, but it never hurts to check. As far as hardware is concerned: I'm planning to use a Gigabyte GA-P55-USB3 motherboard, which in turn uses the Intel P55 Express chipset, the Realtek ALC

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-20 Thread Mark Allums
On 2/20/2010 5:18 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: Peter Tenenbaum put forth on 2/20/2010 4:51 PM: Hello there -- I am planning to assemble a new computer for my home, and to run debian linux on it. I'm planning to use an Intel Core i5-660 CPU in this computer. From the documentation, it looks like t

Re: Correct binary for Intel Core i5

2010-02-20 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Peter Tenenbaum put forth on 2/20/2010 4:51 PM: > Hello there -- > > I am planning to assemble a new computer for my home, and to run debian > linux on it. I'm planning to use an Intel Core i5-660 CPU in this > computer. From the documentation, it looks like the correct binary to use > is the AM