Fernando Gleiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12 Jun 2003, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>
> >
> > No, the 386SX is a problem because it has no floating point registers
> > (or any other floating point support, for that matter). The 386DX
> > (with the floating point support onboard) is supported ju
On 12 Jun 2003, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>
> No, the 386SX is a problem because it has no floating point registers
> (or any other floating point support, for that matter). The 386DX
> (with the floating point support onboard) is supported just fine, as I
> understand it.
No. That's the diference b
On Thursday 12 June 2003 13:58, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> > Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If this is the case, then the hardware notes need updated, I quote:
> > "All Intel processors beginning with the 80386 are supported, including
> > the 80386, ..."
> > .
but I wonder how much.
Tom Veldhouse
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "John Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:42
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> > I could be wrong, but I thought that they finally gave up on 386 support and
> > now the base minimum is 486. It could very well be that you can't compile
> > the system for a 386 without significant modification.
No, it's just that a 386 isn't supported in the ba
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
I could be wrong, but I thought that they finally gave up on 386 support and
now the base minimum is 486. It could very well be that you can't compile
the system for a 386 without significant modification.
If this is the case, then the hardware notes need updated, I quot
I could be wrong, but I thought that they finally gave up on 386 support and
now the base minimum is 486. It could very well be that you can't compile
the system for a 386 without significant modification.
Tom Veldhouse
- Original Message -
From: "John Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[
