Very Computer

by **Dale Ponti** » Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I've seen indications of problems with Kernel 2.2 running on Cyrix
processors. One post even had someone trying to compile 2.2 for
386, (not 486,++) and still being unable to get the thing to run.
I've read other things about some Cyrix stuff 'being left behind'.

So what's the scoop on Kernel 2.2 and Cyrix? Does it really work,
and the one report just local problems? Were Cyrix fixes dropped
somewhere, and have they been picked back up?

Or, since I have an OLD stepping of a Cyrix CPU, am I outta luck
for 2.2 until I upgrade my mobo later this year? I'd rather have
some outlook before going through the lengthy download and rather
not lose hair if this is doomed to failure.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

by **Dr Dale Mello** » Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:00:00

> I've seen indications of problems with Kernel 2.2 running on Cyrix
> processors...

I found it necessary to disable SMP before it would even boot (on a
Cyrix 120+). I'm still not entirely satisfied that the networking is
okay (I often get long delays when rlogin'ing)
Dale

by **Dale Ponti** » Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
> I found it necessary to disable SMP before it would even boot (on a
> Cyrix 120+). I'm still not entirely satisfied that the networking is
> okay (I often get long delays when rlogin'ing)
> Dale

The SMP thing only makes sense for non-Intel. Too bad nobody ever
did produce an OpenPIC mobo. So if someone else has Cyrix working
with 2.2, I guess when I get two minutes to rub together I'll have
to give it a whirl.

Or choose between that and another stab at GNOME.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

by **Jay Thorn** » Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:00:00

> > I found it necessary to disable SMP before it would even boot (on a
> > Cyrix 120+). I'm still not entirely satisfied that the networking is
> > okay (I often get long delays when rlogin'ing)
> > Dale
> The SMP thing only makes sense for non-Intel. Too bad nobody ever
> did produce an OpenPIC mobo. So if someone else has Cyrix working
> with 2.2, I guess when I get two minutes to rub together I'll have
> to give it a whirl.

> Or choose between that and another stab at GNOME.

> Dale Pontius
> (NOT speaking for IBM)

2.20 pre xxx works just fine on my 6x86MX. I've had several machines with
Cyrixes and they've been fine.

SMP is inappropriate for any Cyrix chip, but it should still boot. If not,
you should probably email the developers list with your crash.

2.0.xxx all worked fine on my Cyrix box as well.

--

http://www.kesoftware.com

by **bill davids** » Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:00:00

| So what's the scoop on Kernel 2.2 and Cyrix? Does it really work,
| and the one report just local problems? Were Cyrix fixes dropped
| somewhere, and have they been picked back up?
|
| Or, since I have an OLD stepping of a Cyrix CPU, am I outta luck
| for 2.2 until I upgrade my mobo later this year? I'd rather have
| some outlook before going through the lengthy download and rather
| not lose hair if this is doomed to failure.

2.1.132 runs fine, so I doubt things have changed that much.

Did you select the CPU correctly? =>FROM MEMORY<= you have to select 586
(not Pentium) processor and disable SMP. Cyrix lacks not only SMP (APIC)
hardware, but I believe TSR (TimeStamp Register) as well. I think AMD
has TSR.

Look at help in menuconfig, it's quite clear.
--

"Too soon we grow old, and too late we grow smart" -Arthur Godfrey

by **Paul Mackinla** » Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:00:00

> I've seen indications of problems with Kernel 2.2 running on Cyrix
> processors. One post even had someone trying to compile 2.2 for
> 386, (not 486,++) and still being unable to get the thing to run.
> I've read other things about some Cyrix stuff 'being left behind'.

> So what's the scoop on Kernel 2.2 and Cyrix? Does it really work,
> and the one report just local problems? Were Cyrix fixes dropped
> somewhere, and have they been picked back up?

> Or, since I have an OLD stepping of a Cyrix CPU, am I outta luck
> for 2.2 until I upgrade my mobo later this year? I'd rather have
> some outlook before going through the lengthy download and rather
> not lose hair if this is doomed to failure.

> Dale Pontius
> (NOT speaking for IBM)

Thanks for the warning I was actually going to install Kernel 2.2 on my
machine at home tonight. My CPU is a cyrix 120+. But I'll have to look
in to it a bit further as I can't afford to have my computer in a state
of limbo at the moment!

Paul

--
http://lark.ae.ic.ac.uk/~cmacki/PhD/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dept. of Aeronautics, | Tel: 0171 594 5110 (int. 45110)
Imperial College, |
Prince Consort Road, |
London SW7 2BZ |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

by **Dale Ponti** » Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
> Thanks for the warning I was actually going to install Kernel 2.2 on my
> machine at home tonight. My CPU is a cyrix 120+. But I'll have to look
> in to it a bit further as I can't afford to have my computer in a state
> of limbo at the moment!

Please don't take this as a warning, or at least not too stern
a one. I had heard a few disturbing things, and didn't want to
waste scarce time before settling some fears. From what I hear
on other responses, kernel 2.2.0 should be safe on my system.

At any rate, you would still have your 2.0.X kernel safe and
sound, and could fall back to that. I get the impression that
installing 2.2.X in no way hoses 2.0.X.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

Very Computer

Kernel 2.2 and Cyrix processors

Kernel 2.2 and Cyrix processors

Kernel 2.2 and Cyrix processors

Kernel 2.2 and Cyrix processors

Kernel 2.2 and Cyrix processors

Kernel 2.2 and Cyrix processors

Kernel 2.2 and Cyrix processors

Kernel 2.2 and Cyrix processors