Re: "Most Linux Cuts Won't Install on Pentium 4"
Comentário extraído do site PontoBR, sobre o mesmo assunto:
"Já vi que hoje é dia de Vapourware e Misleading information.
Isto não tem nada há ver com a distribuição. O Kernel do Linux não suporta a
zona que a Intel fez com o pentium IV. Quer dizer, não suportava. Quem viu o
Release Notes do 2.2.18, pode notar o que o Alan Cox escreveu:
The major thrust has been support for processors running in
excess of 2GHz, support for the CyrixIII processor and also
basic support for the Pentium IV. Unfortunately Intel chose to
ignore all precedent in model numbering via cpuid and report a
family of '15'. This sudden jump broke assumptions in the
kernel tree without any warning. Intel have failed to provide
good reasons for their change. We have chosen to continue to
report the Pentium IV as a '686' class processor. The full
family data is provided via cpuinfo.
In addition the early Pentium IV chips appear to have some
problems. You should be using stepping 7 or higher processors
with the latest shipping microcode update if you wish to run
Linux on a Pentium IV processor.
---
Rodrigo Barbosa (morcego)"
Thiago Volpi Ramos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guilherme Oliveira" <guilherme@nortenet.pt>
To: "GUL List" <gul-list@gul.pt>; "Plug Linux" <linux@plug.pt>; "Portuguese
Debian" <debian-user-portuguese@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 9:19 PM
Subject: "Most Linux Cuts Won't Install on Pentium 4"
> Alguém tem alguma ideia do q é isto :)) ???
>
> Parece que todas as distros excepto RedHat (ughh !) não vão conseguir
> instalar o OS num P4.
>
> Alguém me pode explicar a que nível pode acontecer isto ? É do kernel ?
>
> Tnx !
>
> http://www.linuxgram.com/newsitem.phtml?sid=108&aid=11373
> --
> mailto:guilherme@nortenet.pt || http://www.nortenet.pt/~guilherme
> "All bits used in this post are recycled !"
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: