LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   slackware 686 and 64-bit (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/slackware-686-and-64-bit-537244/)

giwrgos88 03-13-2007 07:50 PM

slackware 686 and 64-bit
 
hello guys.......sorry about my english :) greece here :p

i have some questions.....

is true that slackware is 32-bit distro and will not be 64-bit?i don't talk about slack64......

and something else........my laptop is intel core 2 duo T7200....686...can you tell me about the kernels options who needs?
and about programms compile?

my slack take 1.30 - 2 minutes to boot and i have many nervus....

if you can answer pls........thx guys..........


G|wRGoS

GrapefruiTgirl 03-13-2007 08:35 PM

Hello there! I can't answer in great detail, however I can say that throughout my Slackware installation, there are many references to settings intended to be used on 64 bit machines, and there are also some options within the kernel which are specific to 64 bit architectures as well, such as 64-bit memory usage, encryption algorythms for 64 bit machines, and likely other things.
Slackware may or may not be classified as either for 32 bit OR 64 bit, however it will certainly run on both types just fine, and has capability for some 64 bit specific capabilities.
The i686-class question is definitely a YES, to put it simply.
And as time goes on, it is likely there will be more and more 64-bit specific options to choose from; as to whether the designer of Slack will decide to produce a "Specifically 64-bit version", my thoughts are NO, but I'm definitely not the final word on that.
As for your kernel compilation options, you basically must research your computer, the motherboard, and the hardware, and if you want to compile a kernel, then you can use the info you learn about the computer, and tailor the kernel to your system.
Every kernel can be compiled a multitude of ways, and for a new(er) system, you would want to use a 2.6 kernel almost certainly, to get the most performance out of your computer.
I hope this gives you a little bit more info about what you would like to do.
:) Best wishes, from Canada to Greece.

giwrgos88 03-13-2007 08:49 PM

thx GrapefruiTgirl about your answer....i understand some things :)
about kernel compilation i use 2.6 ....i have seen this option (processor family) and i choose this(586/k5/5x86/6x86/6x86mx).....i think 6x86 means 686........

everything is good now but boot time is a problem.......maybe beacuse i use the config from huge26.s which have many modules.........

goodnight everyone......

goodnight canada :p


i am :newbie: and i like this :)

GrapefruiTgirl 03-13-2007 09:17 PM

Yup :) x86 generally refers to any of the x86 family, from 386, 486, 586, or 686.
The compilke options may even offer a specific selection for your processor, for example, I have a Pentium 4, and the compile menu offers a selection for "Pentium 4/Xeon/some-other-one", and in the general compatibility of my kernel, I choose "PC-Compatible".
The huge26 is by default quite large, so there's a lot of stuff to be checked and/or module-probed during boot.
By compiling your own, you can trim the size down and make it better for your system, and it may even boot significantly faster.
Sounds like you are on the right track though; best of luck, and have a good night!

MQMan 03-13-2007 09:26 PM

It was my understanding, that if you boot a 32-bit kernel on a 64-bit system, then it runs in 32-bit mode, and ALL the applications have to be 32-bit. You can't run a 64-bit one.

Now, if you boot a 64-bit kernel, then you can run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers.

piete 03-13-2007 09:39 PM

Quote:

It was my understanding, that if you boot a 32-bit kernel on a 64-bit system, then it runs in 32-bit mode, and ALL the applications have to be 32-bit. You can't run a 64-bit one.
Correct! Give that man a chocolate biscuit! Mmm, biscuits ...

Anyway, for more information on 32/64, here's a thread with some more links in:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=433767

And specifically I think you want to take a look at my reply here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=339819

I am getting so arrogant in my old age, pasting my own threads as sources! I really must learn to pay attention to others work!

- Piete.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 AM.