From: YKhan on 19 Jan 2010 09:46
On Jan 18, 1:13 pm, Zootal <nos...(a)spam.zootal.nospam.com> wrote:
> > Translation: Linux is always compiled for the absolute lowest common
> > denominator. If your processor is a 1985 386-SX, Linux is guaranteed to
> > run on it.
> I wouldn't bet it would run on a 386 unless the kernel was specifically
> compiled for that. You are most likely to find the default bloated kernels
> compiled for a pentium, either classic or pro.
> I have an old 386 machine in my basement that I've been meaning to load
> linux on just to see how it performs. I don't know what I would do with it
> after that, and I must admit it's pretty low on my to-do list...
I've run some modern distros on 486's. Slow as hell, but they do run.
From: Roger Hunt on 19 Jan 2010 10:40
Zootal <nospam(a)spam.zootal.nospam.com> wrote
>Kadaitcha Man <anon(a)no.email> wrote in news:7gj5sf$znu$5(a)shameless-loose-
>> "Zootal", thou balloon-headed velvet guard. I can hardly forbear hurling
>> things at thee. Ye chided:
>>>> Translation: Linux is always compiled for the absolute lowest common
>>>> denominator. If your processor is a 1985 386-SX, Linux is guaranteed to
>>>> run on it.
>>> I wouldn't bet it would run on a 386 unless the kernel was specifically
>>> I have an old 386 machine in my basement that I've been meaning to load
>>> linux on just to see how it performs. I don't know what I would do with
>>> it after that, and I must admit it's pretty low on my to-do list...
>> Thanks for sharing.
>Ignoramus. What happens when you boot a 386 with a kernel compiled for a
>Pentium? I'm betting you don't know because you never tried it. Guess what
>happens when an attempt is made to execute a Pentium+ specific instruction
>on a 386 (bswap, xadd, etc.)? If it doesn't go off on a wab (you do know
>what a wab is, don't you?), and if the kernel doesn't stop the attempt to
>execute, I'm guessing the instruction decoder would barf. Wab, kernel
>panic, or lockup. Take your choice (I don't remember what the 386 does in
>this case, but it's not good lol).
>Anyone here actually tried a kernel compiled for a Pentium+ on a 386?
I have roasted chestnuts on an overclocked 386 while running Win7
From: Yousuf Khan on 19 Jan 2010 23:32
> The bottom line is that the only variable that seems to exist between
> both your old and your new system is that the motherboard and CPU are
> different, and those differences will be handled by the Linux kernel
> itself through its built-in generic support for just about every
> chipset and CPU with the exception of bleeding edge stuff and by
> the /initrd/ via all the driver modules it contains. The proprietary
> nVidia driver will be working with the same video adapter card, so that
> should not be a problem either. Things that require a proprietary
> driver module might not be supported, though. This depends on your
> distribution and whether it includes proprietary drivers or not.
Yeah, thanks. Well, the upgrade has now been completed. Sure enough, the
Linux portion of the upgrade went flawlessly, as everyone assured me.
The only issue so far is that the Gnome Hardware Sensors applet is no
longer detecting my CPU temperatures, for some reason.
Windows XP was much more bothersome however, which I did expect. That's
why I asked about what I had to expect from Linux, since I knew I'd be
busy fighting fires on the Windows side. Due to XP's limitations I won't
be able to put my SATA controllers into AHCI mode, since it just reboots
right away after booting. Linux of course had no problem booting from
the drives in AHCI mode.
From: David W. Hodgins on 19 Jan 2010 23:42
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:32:02 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> The only issue so far is that the Gnome Hardware Sensors applet is no
> longer detecting my CPU temperatures, for some reason.
Try running (as root) sensors-detect.
Regards, Dave Hodgins
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
From: Yousuf Khan on 20 Jan 2010 15:04
David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:32:02 -0500, Yousuf Khan
> <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The only issue so far is that the Gnome Hardware Sensors applet is no
>> longer detecting my CPU temperatures, for some reason.
> Try running (as root) sensors-detect.
Thanks, I have now run that, but now even less things are working. I
used to get hard drive temperatures, but now they don't even show up.
Are there any alternatives to this applet?