On 2015-07-15 11:52, Chris Cappuccio replied to Michael McConville.
First, a quick reply to Michael:
Michael McConville [mmcco...@sccs.swarthmore.edu] wrote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the days of i386
images being reasonable to run on amd64 hardware are coming to an end.
i386 support appears to be a fading priority for most projects and the
subset of amd64 features used is growing quickly.
I still have several OpenBSD/i386 machines, and they work very well.
In the years to come, long after they are eventually replaced, I assume
that OpenBSD may still have i386 in the active pantheon, for testing the
robustness of its multi-architecture code base, if nothing else.
On 2015-07-15 11:52, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
I've never even ran across one of these very early 64-bit Intel chips
without N^X (those are the primary ones that you'd want to run i386
on).
Even my oldest 64-bit Pentium 4 chips claim NX support. The story goes
that Intel didn't want to copy AMD's NX support but implement it
differently. Microsoft told Intel they would only support one
implementation and AMD's was it.
I believe I have one in inventory -- it is currently not in use, and is
powered off. If memory serves the OS last installed on it was i386, due
due to the warning in the FAQ.
