Re: [debian-knoppix] bootsplash
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 05:28:50PM +0200, Kai Lahmann wrote:
> Klaus Knopper wrote:
> >Actually, one of my testing machine is a 486...
>
> I guess an i486DX ;)
486 DX100 with 28 MB Ram (and some swap). Takes about 10 Minutes to boot
until the first Window in KDE, but still works. ;-)
> >i386 is the most compatible option for kernel compilation. If you
> >include a Pentium-optimized kernel, it can get troublesome on some AMD
> >CPUs, at least that's what people have been telling me. :-/
>
> no, not that option - only drop the FPU emulation! About the
> Pentium-Setting: we still have real i486 running Knoppix, slow but it
> works. As i486 doesn't give that much advance over i386 THIS doesn't help.
Does this really save much space, dropping only a few emulated FPU
calls? And is a 486-optimized kernel still compatible to AMD processors?
Sorry, I'm no hardware expert.
> >This would create a kernel that simply crashes on older CPUs.
>
> the 4GB-Setting, not 64GB!
Isn't that the same problem? There is a warning in the Help for this
option.
> >Is this compatible with all USB controllers/devices? I can enable this
> >option, no problem. But I'm not sure if it doesn't have bad side
> >effects.
>
> as far as I know, it only prevents some problems if you have multiple
> devices with a high bandwith usage (as 2 USB-HDs)
Ok, I will switch it on in the next kernel update then. Not right now.
When 2.4.21 comes out, whenever that will be. ;-)
> >There are no "modules for ACPI". You either compile the Kernel for ACPI,
> >which changes a lot of code in ALL kernel modules and produces crashes
> >on the majority of older computers, or you don't, which allows you to
> >use APM which may or may not work, but at least it doesn't crash (very
> >often).
>
> it's only the "OSPM" - the power management...
If you switch on ACPI, you change code in most parts of the kernel, not
only the power management. It also affects modules and SMP code.
> >I tried "real mode APM BIOS call to power off". It crashes badly on
> >poweroff on most tested machines. The protected mode call seems to be
> >more reliable. It does not always work (i.e., no poweroff), but at least
> >it doesn't crash.
>
> hm... can't test (here both crash ;)
Worst case scenario. But at least al devices are unmounted before that
happens, I hope. ;-)
You should boot with "noapm" in that case.
> >What is the advantage of allowing interrupts during APM BIOS calls? Is
> >it safe?
>
> It prevents several IBM Thinkpads from crashing on doing a suspend.
Interesting. Do you have any reports on advantages/disadvantages on
other systems?
Btw, suspend-to-RAM does NOT work anymore on the majority of notebooks I
have seen, if you compile in ACPI. Including my new Asus L3800C. :-(
In APM mode, suspend still works fine, even that the manual keeps telling
me that APM is not supported.
Regards
-Klaus Knopper
_______________________________________________
debian-knoppix mailing list
debian-knoppix@linuxtag.org
http://mailman.linuxtag.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-knoppix
Reply to: