I've been using Slack since ver 8.1 which has always had a 2.4 kernel.
Now it's jumped to 2.6 and I'm wondering if it'll still work on my
ancient hardware, an old 433 celery on a 440BX mobo. I got no sata or
hot graphics cards or USB whatever. None of the newer h/w 2.6 is supposed
to benefit. Will 2.6 be bogged down by this old h/w or should I
upgrade to newer?

nb

notbob wrote:
> I've been using Slack since ver 8.1 which has always had a 2.4 kernel.
> Now it's jumped to 2.6 and I'm wondering if it'll still work on my
> ancient hardware, an old 433 celery on a 440BX mobo. I got no sata or
> hot graphics cards or USB whatever. None of the newer h/w 2.6 is supposed
> to benefit. Will 2.6 be bogged down by this old h/w or should I
> upgrade to newer?

Get a spare partition or HD, install 12 on it, and see how you like it?
That way you can simply reboot if 12 doesn't work out.

The reason to upgrade would be for the new applications, not a new kernel.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:30:49 -0500
notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:

> I've been using Slack since ver 8.1 which has always had a 2.4 kernel.
> Now it's jumped to 2.6 and I'm wondering if it'll still work on my
> ancient hardware, an old 433 celery on a 440BX mobo.

I installed -current on a Pentium-266 with 196MB RAM just a couple of days
before 12.0 was released . No problems thus far. Personally, I like a number
of iptables-related features of 2.6 kernels, and thus an update was worth
trying for me.

--
Mikhail

notbob wrote:
> I've been using Slack since ver 8.1 which has always had a 2.4 kernel.
> Now it's jumped to 2.6 and I'm wondering if it'll still work on my
> ancient hardware, an old 433 celery on a 440BX mobo. I got no sata or
> hot graphics cards or USB whatever. None of the newer h/w 2.6 is supposed
> to benefit. Will 2.6 be bogged down by this old h/w or should I
> upgrade to newer?
>
> nb

If your system runs fine, why disturb it?

Ottavio
http://www.pledgebank.com/boycottvista

Mikhail Zotov wrote:
>> I've been using Slack since ver 8.1 which has always had a 2.4 kernel.
>> Now it's jumped to 2.6 and I'm wondering if it'll still work on my
>> ancient hardware, an old 433 celery on a 440BX mobo.
>
> I installed -current on a Pentium-266 with 196MB RAM just a couple of days
> before 12.0 was released . No problems thus far.

S12 on my 128MB K6/2-450 system is a bit iffy under KDE.

On 2007-07-06, forrest <gmauslander@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mikhail Zotov wrote:

>> I installed -current on a Pentium-266 with 196MB RAM just a couple of days
>> before 12.0 was released . No problems thus far.
>
> S12 on my 128MB K6/2-450 system is a bit iffy under KDE.

I'm on my 450 PII box with Slack 12. Seems to be working just fine with a
couple minor glitches. One, jed is still flawed, no cursor movement by word
with the customary Ctrl = right/left arrow. Also, it's a bit slow, but this
is no doubt due to only having 98K RAM. I'm sure it'll run fast enough when
I add 512K from my old celery box. KDE looks about the same, but xfce has a
lot of great improvements. It's a keeper!

nb

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:51:49 -0500, notbob wrote:

> On 2007-07-06, forrest <gmauslander@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mikhail Zotov wrote:
>
>>> I installed -current on a Pentium-266 with 196MB RAM just a couple of
>>> days before 12.0 was released . No problems thus far.
>>
>> S12 on my 128MB K6/2-450 system is a bit iffy under KDE.
>
> I'm on my 450 PII box with Slack 12. Seems to be working just fine with
> a couple minor glitches. One, jed is still flawed, no cursor movement
> by word with the customary Ctrl = right/left arrow. Also, it's a bit
> slow, but this is no doubt due to only having 98K RAM. I'm sure it'll
> run fast enough when I add 512K from my old celery box. KDE looks about
> the same, but xfce has a lot of great improvements. It's a keeper!
>
> nb

98 K! is indeed a bit meager. You mean meg, don't you?

--
B.Hoffmann

On 2007-07-06, B.Hoffmann <claptrap@notpersonal.org> wrote:

> 98 K! is indeed a bit meager. You mean meg, don't you?

Doh! Yes, I meant 98M. I'd like to get about 1G, but I suppose I should
spend the $$ on a newer cpu/mobo. I'd like to upgrade to USB 2.0. Geez, I
can get whole barebones box for under $200 at Mad Tux, but I so dislike
integrated mobos and I already have two cases and plenty of peripherals.

nb

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:00:51 -0500, notbob wrote:

> On 2007-07-06, B.Hoffmann <claptrap@notpersonal.org> wrote:
>
>> 98 K! is indeed a bit meager. You mean meg, don't you?
>
> Doh! Yes, I meant 98M. I'd like to get about 1G, but I suppose I
> should spend the $$ on a newer cpu/mobo. I'd like to upgrade to USB
> 2.0. Geez, I can get whole barebones box for under $200 at Mad Tux, but
> I so dislike integrated mobos and I already have two cases and plenty of
> peripherals.
>
> nb

Same here, I've got enough boxes standing around and don't want more to
take up space. Don't like throwing away fully functional stuff either,
but if you still haven't got USB2 it might be worth it, you seem to have
got a good deal out of your hardware.

Laptops will be the way for me to go soon when getting a new comp.

C ya.

--
Nice weekend to all-
B.Hoffmann

"B.Hoffmann" wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> Laptops will be the way for me to go soon when getting a new comp.

Bear in mind that laptops are much less updateable, revisable, etc.
than laptops, and that their lifetime is usually much shorter.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com