Paul Rogers wrote:
That's OK, so is all my hardware! I'm retired living on a fixed
income.
You can't afford a one time $89?
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1311.R5.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xcore2+duo.TRS0&_nkw=core+2+duo+desktop&_sacat=0
"FAST Dell Desktop Computer PC Core 2 Duo 3.0GHZ 4GB 160GB Windows 7
PRO+WIFI $89.00"
Not necessary, I already have a pair of identical (Habit I got into with
that "other" software that screams bloody murder if it detects being
moved to a different system in the event of failure.) 4GB 2.67GHz Conroe
Core 2 Duo's right here. Anything up to 4GB of RAM only needs 32-bit
support. 32-bits addresses all of real RAM, and adding more virtual
from swap hits performance hard. 64-bit support does nothing good, just
wastes space with the longer instruction addresses.
Actually the newer processors do a lot more than give expanded memory
access. Internally they have more registers and better cache that speed
things up considerably.
As far as space, the 64-bit systems do use about 15% more.
That said, I do still have P-///'s that I would use in a pinch, and I'd
like that to be with newer software.
I'm doing a build now on my P6. It's very slow compared to newer systems.
I started about an hour ago and it is now all the way up to Chapter 5
glibc. gcc-pass1 took 44 minutes.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
