Processors for Linux

Processors for Linux

Post by Vadim Grinshpu » Thu, 17 Jul 1997 04:00:00



Hi, all.

I'm about to buy a new system (on which I plan to run both Linux and
Win95, dual boot), and I am faced with a tough choice - which processor
to get? I'd like to get some feedback concerning the differences between
the Pentium (with and withou MMX), Cyrix PRxxx+, and the AMD K6.  Are
the differences that significant? Are there any compatibility problems?

Another thing I'm not sure of is which video card to get.  Is it worth
shelling out an extra $100 to get the Matrox Millenium 4mb, or is an S3
or an ET6000 equally good?

Any response would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks :)

-- Vadim Grinshpun


___________________________________________________________________________
| Vadim Grinshpun                       | The Law of the
Letter:            |

fresh |

envelope. |
|_______________________________________|___________________________________|

 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Kertis Henderso » Fri, 18 Jul 1997 04:00:00



> I'm about to buy a new system (on which I plan to run both Linux and
> Win95, dual boot), and I am faced with a tough choice - which processor
> to get? I'd like to get some feedback concerning the differences between
> the Pentium (with and withou MMX), Cyrix PRxxx+, and the AMD K6.  Are
> the differences that significant? Are there any compatibility problems?

One thing is definite:  Cyrix chips are MUCH CHEAPER!  A 6x86 (M1) will
blow a Pentium of the same speed away for most uses.  However its FPU is
slightly slower.  The 6x86MX (M2) gives a Pentium II a good run for its
money (from what I've heard).

A Cyrix runs all Linux software just fine.  I've only run into one
problem under Windows 95.  It seems that the AWE64 drivers don't like
the chip, so the card runs almost like an AWE32.  Other than this, I've
heard of no problems.

--

Kertis Henderson


 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by TimothyBrand » Fri, 18 Jul 1997 04:00:00



> Hi, all.

> I'm about to buy a new system (on which I plan to run both Linux and
> Win95, dual boot), and I am faced with a tough choice - which
> processor
> to get? I'd like to get some feedback concerning the differences
> between
> the Pentium (with and withou MMX), Cyrix PRxxx+, and the AMD K6.  Are
> the differences that significant? Are there any compatibility
> problems?

DEC ALPHA is #1

Quote:> Another thing I'm not sure of is which video card to get.  Is it worth

> shelling out an extra $100 to get the Matrox Millenium 4mb, or is an
> S3
> or an ET6000 equally good?

For most stuff  the Matrox is hard to beat. note the price is dropping
with the new Millenium II
now out.

Tim

 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Brian Muell » Tue, 22 Jul 1997 04:00:00



>One thing is definite:  Cyrix chips are MUCH CHEAPER!

How is the FPU on a Cyrix chip? Did they ever solve the overheating
problem?

btw...this is not related, but I read a full page article in  the
business section of the san jose mercury  news a few months ago about
a new chip (from yet another company). supposedly it was faster than
pentium and was compatible, yet was developed seperately from  the
ground up. anyone have more information?
-----

"Cogito ergo sum." -- Descartes ("I think, therefore I am.")

 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Rod Smi » Tue, 22 Jul 1997 04:00:00


[Posted and mailed]




>>One thing is definite:  Cyrix chips are MUCH CHEAPER!

> How is the FPU on a Cyrix chip? Did they ever solve the overheating
> problem?

The original Cyrix 6x86 CPUs did run hotter than their Intel counterparts,
but with adequate cooling this wasn't a problem.  They also drew more
power than their Intel counterparts, and this could actually be more
serious, since it caused many motherboards with weaker voltage regulators
to overheat and fail.  In any event, even original 6x86 CPUs didn't
NECESSARILY have overheating "problems."

That said, there are Linux kernel patches and add-on utilities that tell
the 6x86 CPU to kick itself into a low-power mode whenever the HLT
instruction is issued.  This reduces both of the above problems, if
present, to very low levels, assuming fairly low system loads.  The
problem is that if you're running with a flaky motherboard or inadequate
CPU cooling, the system will be fine until you do something CPU-intensive,
like compile a kernel or engage in heavy ray-tracing or some such, at
which point the software will crash or you'll get a system crash.

Finally, and probably most to the point, Cyrix has introduced versions of
their CPUs that run much cooler.  I think they've got "L" suffixes on
their model numbers, and IIRC they're dual-voltage CPUs that will
therefore not work with older motherboards, but they require less in the
way of hand-picking of motherboards and cooling hardware once the basic
voltage requirements are met.

Quote:> btw...this is not related, but I read a full page article in  the
> business section of the san jose mercury  news a few months ago about
> a new chip (from yet another company). supposedly it was faster than
> pentium and was compatible, yet was developed seperately from  the
> ground up. anyone have more information?

There's been some discussion of this CPU on the
comp.periphs.ibm.pc.hardware.chips newsgroup (I think that's the one), but
I've not followed it closely.  I gather that the company is aiming mainly
at the low-end Asian market, and isn't ready to go head-to-head with the
likes of AMD or Cyrix, much less Intel, for the mid-range or high-end
CPUs.  (Recall that "faster than Pentium" is pretty low-end these days.)

--
Rod Smith                                 Author of:

http://php.indiana.edu/~rodsmith          "OS/2 Soundcard Summary"
NOTE: Remove "uceprotect" from address to e-mail me

 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Yitzhac Casa » Wed, 23 Jul 1997 04:00:00


: Hi, all.

: I'm about to buy a new system (on which I plan to run both Linux and
: Win95, dual boot), and I am faced with a tough choice - which processor
: to get? I'd like to get some feedback concerning the differences between
: the Pentium (with and withou MMX), Cyrix PRxxx+, and the AMD K6.  Are
: the differences that significant? Are there any compatibility problems?

IMHO, MMX is mainly meant to allow better performaance for various kinds
of "Win-hardware". This hardware comes with Windows drivers that do in
software what decent hardware would do using dedicated on-board
processors. This increases the load on the CPU and degrdes overall system
performance. It's true that some voice/image processing applications might
benefit from it (In one lecture I took I heard of a performance gain of
1500% by hand-coding such a program in assemby using MMX instructions),
but no such applications are currently available, even for Windows.
Since curently no Linux drivers are available for this class of
Win-junkware, you should avoid it like the plague.
Of the CPUs that would fit in a Pentium socket the K6 is the fastest.
However, to achieve the full performance gain you need a board that can
run at 75MHz, and there aren't many of these around.

: Another thing I'm not sure of is which video card to get.  Is it worth
: shelling out an extra $100 to get the Matrox Millenium 4mb, or is an S3
: or an ET6000 equally good?

IMO, since most X applications were written with Workstations in mind,
they require high resolutions to be comfortable. You'll also want a
reasonably high color depth - probably High-Color - to avoid trouble with
"color maps". However, for resolutions of 1024x768 you probably need a 17"
monitor, so prepare to shell out at least $750 if you're intersted in this
pleasure. However, note that the default X server (that's the component
managing graphics on your machine) can has a "virtual desktop" feature,
similar to ATI's (on Windows).
The conclusion is you'll probably want a 4MB graphics adapter, if you can
afoord it. However, I don't think you need a Millenium, unless you use 3D
graphics software and similar fancy stuff. I was able to find an ET6000
with 4.5MB MDRAM for just $159 recently (could get one for even less
several weeks later when a large computer store chain went bankrupt ...)
IMHO, it works great under Linux and NT 4.0, but causes trouble with OS/2
4.0. So it might be the thing for you, unless you're considering to add
OS/2 to the mix before version 5.0 (which would hopefully include sensible
ET6000 drivers) is out, which is scheduled for next year. If you do (and I
personally I think that of al PC based OSes OS/2 is the best companion for
Linux - mail me if you want to know why) this may change the
considerations presented above about MMX, since it comes with a voice
recognition component built in, which may be able to take advantage of MMX
in the future.

--
Yours
    Yitzhac Casapu
       Phone/FaxModem: 972-4-8334527
       41/12 Beth-Lehem St. Haifa, Israel; ZIP: 35567
    Studying at the Technion - Israel institute of technology.
       Faculty of Electrical Engineering

When I shop for hardware I always look for the "Designed for Windows 95" logo.
I really thank Microsoft(TM) for encouraging manufacturers to label their
products this way, so I know what to AVOID.

I stick to quality software:

Linux 2.0.30                        | IBM OS/2 Warp (TM) v4.0

 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Thomas D. Nadea » Wed, 23 Jul 1997 04:00:00


Does anyone know of problems related to running the AMD K6
with Linux? The RedHat page states that there have been some
problems related to the machine freezing-up but only during install.
They noted that this is probably due to incompatable motherboards
being used with the K6. Any ideas? Suggestions are greatly appreciated.

--
------------------------------------------------------------

Meetinghouse Data Communications         Portsmouth, NH  USA
------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Mirco Waha » Wed, 23 Jul 1997 04:00:00


Couldn't resist to comment some of your opinions,

Quote:> IMHO, MMX is mainly meant to allow better performaance for various
> kinds of "Win-hardware". This hardware comes with Windows drivers
> that do in software what decent hardware would do using dedicated
> on-board processors. This increases the load on the CPU and degrdes
> overall system performance. It's true that some voice/image
> processing applications might benefit from it (In one lecture I
> took I heard of a performance gain of 1500% by hand-coding such a
> program in assemby using MMX instructions), but no such applications
> are currently available, even for Windows.

The question of the original poster was: PentiumMMX or Pentium. From
this consideration, your answer misses the point. The production of
the Pentium w/o MMX (P54C) is discontinued by Intel, they only sell
the old parts from the shelves. The PentiumMMX (P55C) got some
architectural changes. It has  larger internal cache (from 2x8K to 2x
16K, AFAIK) and it has (parts of?) the branch prediction of the P II.
In various benchmarks (depending on the data size used), the MMX
Pentium version tends to run 10%-15% faster at the same clock rate.

The MMX itself does not reduce the system performance per se. What
you meant was probably: you could always have a dedicated hardware
extension for the job otherwise done in MMX commands. This is true,
but for most home users, a little speed up in video or audio stuff
would enable them to use fancy software without adding a dedicated
card. And this is, as you can imagine, Intels strategy. Some time
ago I used to play a nice "3D shoot 'em up" demo of the game "ZAR"
on my non-MMX P187.5 (o/c). Then I saw the same thing on my
brothers P200/MMX. By that experience I feeled what would be possible
by proper usage of MMX in multimedia stuff. The bad news, MMX uses
the registers of the FP unit, this reduces its applicability for
3D modelling.

Quote:> Since curently no Linux drivers are available for this class of
> Win-junkware, you should avoid it like the plague.

This statement makes no sense for me. Could you give some facts.
(What do you mean with: "Linux drivers for Windows programs")

Quote:> Of the CPUs that would fit in a Pentium socket the K6 is the
> fastest. However, to achieve the full performance gain you need
> a board that can run at 75MHz, and there aren't many of these
> around.

No problem, *most* of the mainbord brands today offer 75MHz, some
even 83MHz. Only avoid one brand: *Intel*.
BTW, the K6 is a very good part. But Intel has done some strange
price cuts. K6 has faster architecture, P5 has faster FPU->memory
access. Very hard decision ... (Compare K6/200 to P233MMX)
My guess, avoid the new Cyrix until the dust has settled and
until some good reviews are available. (I *had* a 6x86, ...).

Quote:> IMO, since most X applications were written with Workstations in
[snip]
> can has a "virtual desktop" feature, similar to ATI's (on Windows).
> The conclusion is you'll probably want a 4MB graphics adapter, if you
> can afoord it. However, I don't think you need a Millenium, unless
> you use 3D graphics software and similar fancy stuff.

Unfortunately, the Millenium is a rather bad 3D performer. The
strength of the Millenium:
- 8MB upgradable
- highest refresh rates at resolutions above 1280x1024
- very fast true color and high color modes above 1280x1024
- good driver support
- very good video signal, sharper images above 1280x1024

Quote:> I was able to find an ET6000 with 4.5MB MDRAM for just $159 recently
> (could get one for even less several weeks later when a large
> computer store chain went bankrupt ...) IMHO, it works great under
> Linux and NT 4.0, but causes trouble with OS/2 4.0. So it might be

If not a Millenium, why not a Mystique. About 3 weeks ago we tested a
4 MB Mystique in a PPro200 under Linux 2.0.29 using the new X-Server.
It is really really fast, especially the lines and the BLT's. The
Win95/NT support is among the best in the field. Drivers and features
are stable and good. The retail Mystique even comes with a bunch of
3D games for Win95 including Mechwarrior2. The signal quality is
close to the Millenium, the video playback (MPEG interpolation) is
much better than Millenium. Because the new Mystique220 is out now,
the prices drop more and more now.

Quote:> Linux - mail me if you want to know why) this may change the
> considerations presented above about MMX, since it comes with a
> voice recognition component built in, which may be able to take
> advantage of MMX in the future.

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wow... (now the devil has the largest perspectives)

Quote:> When I shop for hardware I always look for the "Designed for
> Windows 95" logo. I really thank Microsoft(TM) for encouraging
> manufacturers to label their products this way, so I know what to
> AVOID.

This is funny, didn't know this one

Quote:> I stick to quality software:
> Linux 2.0.30                        | IBM OS/2 Warp (TM) v4.0

What in the hell is "IBM OS/2 Warp (TM) v4.0"? Is this something like
OS/2 Warp 3, which was preinstalled on one of our P90/8MB two
years ago?
Hmmm ... ??? :-(

Greetings

Mirco

 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Sven C. Da » Fri, 25 Jul 1997 04:00:00




> >One thing is definite:  Cyrix chips are MUCH CHEAPER!

> How is the FPU on a Cyrix chip? Did they ever solve the overheating
> problem?

> btw...this is not related, but I read a full page article in  the
> business section of the san jose mercury  news a few months ago about
> a new chip (from yet another company). supposedly it was faster than
> pentium and was compatible, yet was developed seperately from  the
> ground up. anyone have more information?
> -----

> "Cogito ergo sum." -- Descartes ("I think, therefore I am.")

  Check http://infopad.eecs.berkeley.edu/CIC for information about the C6.
--
LOAD "EMACS",8,1
 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Bas Vermeul » Fri, 25 Jul 1997 04:00:00


: Couldn't resist to comment some of your opinions,

: > Linux - mail me if you want to know why) this may change the
: > considerations presented above about MMX, since it comes with a
: > voice recognition component built in, which may be able to take
: > advantage of MMX in the future.
:   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: Wow... (now the devil has the largest perspectives)
:  
: > When I shop for hardware I always look for the "Designed for
: > Windows 95" logo. I really thank Microsoft(TM) for encouraging
: > manufacturers to label their products this way, so I know what to
: > AVOID.

: This is funny, didn't know this one

: > I stick to quality software:
: > Linux 2.0.30                        | IBM OS/2 Warp (TM) v4.0

: What in the hell is "IBM OS/2 Warp (TM) v4.0"? Is this something like
: OS/2 Warp 3, which was preinstalled on one of our P90/8MB two
: years ago?
: Hmmm ... ??? :-(

Nahhhhh... It means OS/2 Warp 4.0 (aka Merlin). It's pretty cool, has
built in voice-recognition, and works like a charm. Version 3.0 was ok,
and with a little better marketing on IBM's side it could have beat
Win 95 easily. It is also completely 32-bit (As opposed to said Win95)

--
Bas Vermeulen                     | Running Linux 2.0.30A

                                  |         DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11

: Greetings

: Mirco

 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Riley William » Mon, 28 Jul 1997 04:00:00


Hi Kertis.

Quote:>> I'm about to buy a new system (on which I plan to run both Linux and
>> Win95, dual boot), and I am faced with a tough choice - which processor
>> to get? I'd like to get some feedback concerning the differences between
>> the Pentium (with and withou MMX), Cyrix PRxxx+, and the AMD K6.  Are
>> the differences that significant? Are there any compatibility problems?
> One thing is definite:  Cyrix chips are MUCH CHEAPER!  A 6x86 (M1) will
> blow a Pentium of the same speed away for most uses.  However its FPU is
> slightly slower.  The 6x86MX (M2) gives a Pentium II a good run for its
> money (from what I've heard).
> A Cyrix runs all Linux software just fine.  I've only run into one
> problem under Windows 95.  It seems that the AWE64 drivers don't like
> the chip, so the card runs almost like an AWE32.  Other than this, I've
> heard of no problems.

I have to admit that I don't like Cyrix processors, and have never had
one that didn't give me problems under Linux. I'd agree that they're
much cheaper than Intel processors, but they're virtually the same price
as AMD processors, and I've never had any problems with the latter,
hence they're my favourite...

Best wishes from Riley,
UK Host for IGA-Net{tm},
The International Genealogy Association Network.


 ... WWW:   http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/5137

 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Christopher B. Brow » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00



Quote:>I have to admit that I don't like Cyrix processors, and have never had
>one that didn't give me problems under Linux. I'd agree that they're
>much cheaper than Intel processors, but they're virtually the same price
>as AMD processors, and I've never had any problems with the latter,
>hence they're my favourite...

As yet another data point, I've never had a problem with my Cyrix CPU.

Based on the preponderance of evidence in Usenet discussions, those
cases where people have had problems with Cyrix processors have
generally resulted from hardware problems with memory or motherboard.
Users are not generally able to isolate the problem to the CPU as they
don't have extra CPUs to swap in; similar problems would result with
any other CPU.

The increasing availability of half-decent PCI motherboards using
common designs that don't have to cost a lot (the Gigabyte 586S comes
to mind; they sell for about $100 these days) that are nicely
compatible with any but the "bleeding edge" processors makes most of
this pretty moot.  Buy a half-decent motherboard and decent memory,
and these problems go away.

--

PGP Fingerprint: 10 5A 20 3C 39 5A D3 12  D9 54 26 22 FF 1F E9 16
URL: <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/>
Q: What does the CE in Windows CE stand for?  A: Caveat Emptor...

 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Jim Zub » Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:00:00



> Hi Kertis.

> >> I'm about to buy a new system (on which I plan to run both Linux
> and
> >> Win95, dual boot), and I am faced with a tough choice - which
> processor
> >> to get? I'd like to get some feedback concerning the differences
> between
> >> the Pentium (with and withou MMX), Cyrix PRxxx+, and the AMD K6.
> Are
> >> the differences that significant? Are there any compatibility
> problems?

> > One thing is definite:  Cyrix chips are MUCH CHEAPER!  A 6x86 (M1)
> will
> > blow a Pentium of the same speed away for most uses.  However its
> FPU is
> > slightly slower.  The 6x86MX (M2) gives a Pentium II a good run for
> its
> > money (from what I've heard).

> > A Cyrix runs all Linux software just fine.  I've only run into one
> > problem under Windows 95.  It seems that the AWE64 drivers don't
> like
> > the chip, so the card runs almost like an AWE32.  Other than this,
> I've
> > heard of no problems.

> I have to admit that I don't like Cyrix processors, and have never had

> one that didn't give me problems under Linux. I'd agree that they're
> much cheaper than Intel processors, but they're virtually the same
> price
> as AMD processors, and I've never had any problems with the latter,
> hence they're my favourite...

> Best wishes from Riley,
> UK Host for IGA-Net{tm},
> The International Genealogy Association Network.


>  ... WWW:   http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/5137

I am not trying to flame anyone, but I have found that about 80-90% of
these
so called incompatibilities and problems people have with non-intel
CPU's (or
any computer hardware for that matter) are caused by people who think
they
know how to setup a computer but in actuality are basically clueless.  I
have
personally set up and used about 12 VERY different Cyrix based system
(all
with completely different hardware) and have had ZERO problems, this is
in 95 and Linux, there are some known incompatibilities with certain
software
titles, Cyrix puts these up on their web site with fixes generally.

If you are going to think about getting a Cyrix or AMD or even Intel
system, do
your homework, read up on all your options, if your informed you will
likely have
a lot less headaches when you finally get your system and set it up.

If I have to go to another LAN party and spend 2 hours helping people
get their
dang network cards working I am going to scream!  grrrrr....

Actually I don't mind helping people, it is sort of annoying though.  If
you are
clueless about computers get brand name stuff folks, you will have the
least
troubles, none of these cheap ass $20 network cards, they work fine, but
they
can be troublesome to get working...

Ok maybe the 80-90% mentioned above is a little high, but you get my
point.

--
Jim Zubb


 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Rod Smi » Wed, 30 Jul 1997 04:00:00




Quote:

> Based on the preponderance of evidence in Usenet discussions, those
> cases where people have had problems with Cyrix processors have
> generally resulted from hardware problems with memory or motherboard.
> Users are not generally able to isolate the problem to the CPU as they
> don't have extra CPUs to swap in; similar problems would result with
> any other CPU.

My readings of the newsgroup discussions, reviews and whatnot on the net,
and my own personal experience suggest that the main problem is typically
with an INTERACTION between the motherboard and the CPU.  For instance,
take two CPUs (call them A and B), and two motherboards (X and Y), and try
them in each possible combination.  CPU A works with both boards X and Y,
but CPU B works only with motherboard X -- or put the other way,
motherboard X works with both CPUs A and B, while motherboard Y works only
with CPU A.  Those who want to put down CPU A, or who have access to both
CPUs and only motherboard Y, tend to phrase it the first way, which makes
it sound as if CPU B is the problem; while those who dislike motherboard
Y, or who have access to only CPU B but both motherboards, tend to phrase
it the second way.  Where to put the "blame," or even if it needs to be
placed at all, is a matter beyond the ken of even a reasonably informed
consumer.

In the case of Cyrix 6x86 CPUs of about a year ago, these CPUs drew more
current than their Intel Pentium counterparts, and motherboards with
voltage regulators that couldn't handle this didn't work well with them,
hence you'd get lots of interaction effects.  I experienced this
personally.  I gather from discussions at the time that earlier Cyrix CPUs
(the 5x86 and even 486 and earlier) CPUs had similar interaction issues.
I haven't been following the latest 6x86 dual-voltage and MMX CPUs very
closely, so I don't know if this sort of thing is as common with them.  I
do know that similar issues crop up with AMD and even Intel CPUs, though
with the latter, the motherboard manufacturers all scramble to be sure
their latest production is compatible with everything Intel produces.

The bottom line, especially when buying a Cyrix or AMD CPU:  Check for
compatibility of the CPU with the motherboard.  Both Cyrix and AMD
maintain lists of officially tested boards on their web sites.  Make sure
you're getting something that's certified by the CPU manufacturer and/or
the motherboard manufacturer for the specific model AND SPEED of CPU you
intend to use.  This will greatly enhance your chances of getting
something that works well.

As this is a Linux newsgroup, I'll add that I've seen very little in the
way of Linux-specific compatibility gripes lately with respect to
motherboards or CPUs.  It seems that the rise of Win95 and WinNT have made
manufacturers more aware of the needs of 32-bit OSes, and this has
benefitted Linux.  This isn't to say that all motherboards are created
equal, of course; but if something works well in WinNT, say, it's likely
to work well in Linux, as well.  If there are any major exceptions to this
rule for currently-available hardware, I'm sure this message will provoke
a response, so keep your eye on this thread if you want to know about
it.... ;-)

--
Rod Smith                                 Author of:

http://php.indiana.edu/~rodsmith          "OS/2 Soundcard Summary"
NOTE: Remove "uceprotect" from address to e-mail me

 
 
 

Processors for Linux

Post by Tor Slettne » Fri, 01 Aug 1997 04:00:00


    Riley> I have to admit that I don't like Cyrix processors, and
    Riley> have never had one that didn't give me problems under
    Riley> Linux.

I.e. you have never had one at all.  :-)
(Sorry, could not resist).

    Riley> I'd agree that they're much cheaper than Intel processors,
    Riley> but they're virtually the same price as AMD processors, and
    Riley> I've never had any problems with the latter, hence they're
    Riley> my favourite...

For the same generation processor, it seems that Cyrixes in general
perform a bit better than AMD's and especially Intel's.  They _do_
have some heat problems now and then, for instance in their initial
version of the 6x86 (without the 'L' for 'low power') -- as do Intel
(but curiously not AMD).  I have also heard vague rumors that Windows
NT 4.0 runs with the L1 cache disabled under Cyrix processors, but
have verified this to be wrong with the 6x86 P200+.

I have, of course, not had any single problem with the processor - and
following the discussion, it seems that most problems people have
(such as the A20 line someone mentioned on their AMD chip) is luser
error.

-tor

 
 
 

1. TeX as a word processor (was Linux word processor?)

| It's somewhat silly, not completely. In some cases, you just can't do
| the job without TeX. At one firm where I'm doing some consulting work,
| I was approached by the accountant - a Polish lady - about how she can
| obtain the all of the special characters and accents for writing
| letters to family and friends overseas. Microsoft Word doesn't offer a
| satisfactory solution at all, whereas TeX can do everything. Word
| requires that you change the character set (which isn't always big
| enough to hold all the necessary combination), whereas TeX can
| synthesize all kinds of accents and stick them onto any character you
| want. For instance, she requires the cedilla accent (the little
| squiggle that the French use in the word Francais under the 'c') to be
| used with a whole bunch of capital letters, such as E. In TeX, you
| just type "\c E", and there it is.

Sorry to intervene in a possibly unmentionable way, but WordPerfect
allows a lot of scope in this respect (having not only the cedilla
but also the true ogonek or "Polish Hook", and many other diacritics).
There are various ways to combine an accent with a character. You can
either do this by key-strokes for occasional use, or write a macro
(which could be stored as a "Keyboard macro" if you decided, for instance,
to set up a special Polish keybaoard). Plus, you have about a 50 percent
chance to see your composed character on the screen.

If it's a choice between Word and TeX for this kind of thing, I would
choose WordPerfect (if you'll pardon the logic).

However, if it's a choice between WordPerfect and TeX, I'd choose troff
(if you know your way round the ms macros, you can set up anything your
printer can print). You could type Kazimir's example as \(,E for example,
once you had defined ",E" as a character object.

Don't ask me about Word.


2. rm /dev/hdb. Autsch!

3. Attacks bringing my system down!

4. Linux and the Marketplace (was: Word Processor for Linux & other apps)

5. Kernel 2.4.9 and latest cdrecord/xcdroast gives hard lockup

6. FOUND: a decent Word Processor for Linux

7. UQWK binaries needed

8. Word Processors for Linux

9. What processors does linux run on?

10. Word (Text) Processors for Linux?

11. Word Processor for Linux

12. Support for Multiple Processors in Linux