> Merciadri Luca :
>I've never used AMD-based computers, and I've therefore always chosen
>i386 as I habitually deal with Intel stuff.
I have ever choosen AMD when possible and they run all Linux flavours
like a charm.
Just for the record,
- I like challengers, and AMD is Intel's one (with more
Thanks. I'll have a deeper look in this as soon as possible.
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Jo, 01 iul 10, 15:06:33, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
>> Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> It's true. There is no difference in the installation process of OS
>>> (AMD or Intel).
>>>
On Jo, 01 iul 10, 15:06:33, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It's true. There is no difference in the installation process of OS
> > (AMD or Intel).
> Thanks.
> > If you are using it for personal purpose i386 is preferred. Other wise
> > i recommend i686.
> W
Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's true. There is no difference in the installation process of OS
> (AMD or Intel).
Thanks.
> If you are using it for personal purpose i386 is preferred. Other wise
> i recommend i686.
Why (briefly)? (Or give me a pointer.)
Thanks.
--
Merciadri Luca
S
On 07/01/2010 06:53 AM, Krishna Chandra Prajapati wrote:
Hi,
It's true. There is no difference in the installation process of OS (AMD
or Intel). If you are using it for personal purpose i386 is preferred.
Other wise i recommend i686.
There is no i686 arch in Debian. The i386 arch, though, do
Hi,
It's true. There is no difference in the installation process of OS (AMD or
Intel). If you are using it for personal purpose i386 is preferred. Other
wise i recommend i686.
Krishna
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Merciadri Luca <
luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've never
On 07/01/2010 06:26 AM, Merciadri Luca wrote:
Hi,
I've never used AMD-based computers, and I've therefore always chosen
i386 as I habitually deal with Intel stuff. The fact is that I've got to
install Debian on an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core. The AMD world is
totally stranger for me. I would like
Camaleón wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:26:52 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
>
>> I've never used AMD-based computers, and I've therefore always chosen
>> i386 as I habitually deal with Intel stuff. The fact is that I've got to
>> install Debian on an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core. The AMD world i
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:26:52 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> I've never used AMD-based computers, and I've therefore always chosen
> i386 as I habitually deal with Intel stuff. The fact is that I've got to
> install Debian on an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core. The AMD world is
> totally stranger for me
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 04:16:38PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Monday 31 March 2008 12:24:05 pm Phil Wiley wrote:
My computer uses an AMD XP3200 processor. Which set of instructions
should I use?
The ones that apply to your system's architecture. If you used to run
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 04:16:38PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Monday 31 March 2008 12:24:05 pm Phil Wiley wrote:
My computer uses an AMD XP3200 processor. Which set of instructions
should I use?
The ones that apply to your system's architecture. If you used to run
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 04:16:38PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Monday 31 March 2008 12:24:05 pm Phil Wiley wrote:
> > My computer uses an AMD XP3200 processor. Which set of instructions
> > should I use?
>
> The ones that apply to your system's architecture. If you used to run
> Windows, od
On Monday 31 March 2008 21:24, Phil Wiley wrote:
> My computer uses an AMD XP3200 processor. Which set of instructions
> should I use?
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil Wiley
> Massachusetts, USA
You mean to download an image fo install: i386 will do.
Thierry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
On Monday 31 March 2008 12:24:05 pm Phil Wiley wrote:
> My computer uses an AMD XP3200 processor. Which set of instructions
> should I use?
The ones that apply to your system's architecture. If you used to run
Windows, odds are you're on i386, less likely ia64 or amd64.
--
Paul Johnson
[EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/31/08 14:24, Phil Wiley wrote:
> My computer uses an AMD XP3200 processor. Which set of instructions
> should I use?
Are you asking whether this is a 32-bit or 64-bit system?
(Since x86-64 systems also have a 32-bit mode, you can always run it
> > Some more info: compiled on my own unstable machine, also got serious
> > problems. Then I recompiled on my machine optimising for 486 instead of
> > Athlon, sounds like there was no problem. So AMD optimization is broken?
>
> That's it. I've seen numerous problems related to the Athlon
On Aug 23 2001, Hugo van der Merwe wrote:
> Some more info: compiled on my own unstable machine, also got serious
> problems. Then I recompiled on my machine optimising for 486 instead of
> Athlon, sounds like there was no problem. So AMD optimization is broken?
That's it. I've seen numero
> I am now compiling him a kernel on my machine (running unstable), hoping
> this might sort it out. Might it be GCC3 issues? (What compiler is used
> when using make-kpkg btw? And when compiling .deb's from source?
> (gcc2.xx or gcc3)) I guess it might be testing's prerelease gcc3
> (1:3.0-0pre010
Actually, it's just the kernel that comes with the 2.1 installation CD or
floppy images. Believe me, I just bought the CD, and it wouldn't install
on my Athlon system. I'd suggest installing 2.2 (potato).
John
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Tal Danzig wrote:
> I don't think it will work with 2.1
>
> Use
I don't think it will work with 2.1
Use potato, or a potato based distro like Libranet.
Tal
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:10:08 -0700, Daniel Gebhardt said:
> Are there any issues with using the athlon processor on debian 2.1?
> I thought I read something about needing to use 2.2
>
> i'm abou
20 matches
Mail list logo
