Clearly, there is a reason that the 686 version exists.

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #250,902 by folkert 4/4/06 2:01:49 PM Reply	Clearly, there is a reason that the 686 version exists. It takes better advantage of the 686 instruction set... which IMNSHO, is a much better usage of the hardware. Insofar as it being stable, when the 386 kernel changes (for security/etc problems) the 686 will changes too. IOW, if they update the 686 Kernel, the 386 kernel will be as well. Virtually no reason NOT to use the 686 variant. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Freedom is not FREE. Yeah, but 10s of Trillions of US Dollars? SELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0; 0 rows returned.
Post #250,906 by inthane-chan 4/4/06 2:08:31 PM Reply	Done, thanks. Just a sanity check before proceeding. When somebody asks you to trade your freedoms for security, it isn't your* security they're talking about.*
Post #251,056 by dws 4/5/06 1:12:49 AM Reply	Low-power VIA stuff might need 386 Some of the low-power processers that VIA uses don't have all of the 586 instructions (the EPIA C3 doesn't have CMOV, IIRC).

Any reason not to use 686 v.s. 386 kernel? - (inthane-chan) - (6) - April 4, 2006, 01:42:35 PM EDT

Clearly, there is a reason that the 686 version exists. - (folkert) - (2) - April 4, 2006, 02:01:49 PM EDT

Done, thanks. - (inthane-chan) - April 4, 2006, 02:08:31 PM EDT

Low-power VIA stuff might need 386 - (dws) - April 5, 2006, 01:12:49 AM EDT

Yup - (broomberg) - (1) - April 5, 2006, 12:04:32 AM EDT

:-) - (Steve Lowe) - April 5, 2006, 12:42:25 AM EDT

You've answered your own question - (pwhysall) - April 5, 2006, 02:59:26 AM EDT

Like going to ELIZA for therapy...
69 ms