Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Sun 15 Jul 2018, 20:58
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
Puppy Guideline: determining Legacy vs Modern Hardware
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 1 [5 Posts]  
Author Message
belham2

Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 1520

PostPosted: Wed 13 Dec 2017, 13:23    Post subject:  Puppy Guideline: determining Legacy vs Modern Hardware  

Hi all,

I must admit, this has always had me flummoxed. The title says it all. What got me thinking about it again was Radky's thread for his great Dpup Stretch CE:

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=974590#974590


Notice in the beginning of his thread this:

Code:

Kernel options
• k4.1.47-i686-pae for legacy hardware
• k4.9.68-i686-pae for recent hardware



I realize this question may be like trying to squeeze jello in your hands and not have any spill out, but is there some sort of guidelines a person (who comes to puppy or is a current user) could use to determine:

a) whether they have legacy and/or modern hardware, and:

b) exactly how to go about that (i.e. terminal commands, looking for hardware items, or graphics, or....????)?


I never know what stuff (which kernel of said offered pup or ddog) to run on the various hodge-podge of machines I own (some 5-6 yrs old, others 8-12 yrs old). It seems all a mystic guessing game to me. I'm sure some of you must be the same.

So what kind of guidelines could a person use to tell whether they should be using a pup that is offered with a kernel for legacy hardware vs a pup that is offered with a kernel for so-called "modern" (or recent) hardware. When I read, for example, a thread by Sage & he is yelling about his Eniac IBM blowing a vacuum tube, or Billtoo, constantly compiling some sort of new space-age driver for his Nvidia, I can't help but wonder we are in some sort of Never Ending wasteland here Shocked

Thus, can a "general" guideline be developed, as to just what are the deciding factors, or rankings of them, to determine this "legacy" vs "modern" hardware thing?


Let the squeezing of the jello begin
Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sailor Enceladus

Joined: 22 Feb 2016
Posts: 1528

PostPosted: Wed 13 Dec 2017, 14:20    Post subject:  

Some really old PCs don't even have pae. I think maybe it's just a guideline radky made to tell the user that the higher number is newer (in case someone thinks the opposite) and that the kernel version might make a difference in performance or compatibility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
amigo

Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 2641

PostPosted: Thu 14 Dec 2017, 07:55    Post subject:  

Yes, pae is quite restrictive and so is -i686.
Legacy hardware, 10-15 years old, is best served by kernel 2.4 or 2.6.26 at latest. i586 is a good arch -there really are no more 486's being used at all seriously. i586/PentiumI is a good compromise. One could argur for PenitumII as a minimum, but then you leave out millions of Geode and K processors which are still out there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 3901
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Thu 14 Dec 2017, 19:52    Post subject:  

Y'know, this really is subjective..!

One could argue that, by definition, all hardware over 10 years old should be labelled 'legacy'. My elderly Compaq desktop - 12 yrs old, and made by Compaq shortly before HP bought 'em out, and reduced the Compaq name to a mere 'badge' in HP's, at that time, seriously shoddy line-up - has been labelled exactly that by more than one person.

Yet because it's 64-bit, employing the very first mass-produced 64-bit desktop processor (the Athlon64; in this case, an X2 3800+ dual-core.....and modernised to the hilt with all the newest hardware it's capable of running, including an SSD), it's easily capable of running relatively modern 64-bit distros. Tahr64 it's happy with, although Xenial64 it has problems with in some areas. I mostly run 32-bit Pups on her, 'cos they fly like their feet don't touch the ground.

I'm currently in Xenialpup 7.0.8.1, with the 4.9.13 kernel.....and it's absolutely rock-solid.

Yet the anciente Dell (15 yrs old this year, and P4-based; 2.6 GHz w/ 400 FSB, so 32-bit by definition) also runs this same Pup.....and seems perfectly happy with it.

Where do you draw the line?


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY PUPPY PACKAGES | 'Thanks' are always appreciated!
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
8Geee


Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 1595
Location: N.E. USA

PostPosted: Thu 14 Dec 2017, 20:37    Post subject:  

The easy way is 32bit legacy / 64bit modern.
The problem is that the kernel for a 32bit system "Should" be 3.x.y or 2.6.X. Regarding this last point to even be somewhat secure in the modern-world support for TLS 1.2 needs to exist.

Regards
8Geee

_________________
Linux user #498913

Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 1 [5 Posts]  
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0535s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0093s) ][ GZIP on ]