Poll: default optimizations for packages in Slack 10.1
 

just curious...what default optimization would u like to see for the packages slack 10.1? as of now slack 10.0 is i486 for all packages(AFAIK)...
i personally would like to see i686 packages from now on, but then i guess slack 10.1 will be unusable on REALLY old machines...

hey moderator how about making this a sticky for a while?

well....
- there are distros which target specially on "older" pc's , ( like "delilinux " ), so there's no need to support those ( i486,i586 ) system's anymore.

but :
-Slackware should be usable all over the world for anyone. as not all people live in the " rich " part of the world.

-an "oldy " ( i486 ) should be able to run it. and if someone really wants an i686 compile, you can compie the whole thing yourself ( don't expect miracles. )

-i myself have revived my old pentium1 ( 200 MHz ), with Slack10 and fluxbox, and it's very usable , so why throw away "old" computers: it's a waste.

so , i say: keep supporting the "oldy's " :)

egag

Definitely the "smallest common denominator" principle.

And as far as I'm concerned (I don't mod in Slackware)
there's no need for this to be stickied ;}


Cheers,
Tink

Optimizations for a single CPU type are overrated in my opinion. And you will lose a lot of compability with older CPU types. So my choice is i486 :)

hmm...looks like i686 + p4/athlon xp seems to have an edge on i486...

...which proves that not all visitors of the Slackware
forum who part-take in a poll are well-informed or
good at reading ;)


Cheers,
Tink

i686 packages won't speed you up. Really. I'm working on a Gentoo box at school and nothing feels faster than it normally would on a P3/650.

I think they ought to give you a choice when you first install Slackware. For example, I have a PIII Tualatin @1.4Ghz with 512 cache, and I hardly think x486 is the right choice for my processor. When I compiled my last kernel I chose PIII for my choice over x486, but have often wondered what the best architect is for my tualatin processor?

I don't think we should plan on Pat V. compiling 2 or 3 entirely different versions just to give someone a choice. Pat will continue to compile for the slowest macine he can without causing problems. Look how long he kept 386 compatibility.

What a great idea :}

Let's try to convince how sensible it would be for
him to compile let's say 5 or 6 builds and offer
as many lots of ISO for download when the actual
speed-gain in real-life is marginal :D

The only things that really matter is the kernel, and
maybe the architecture for things like transcode. On
all other accounts it's just not worth the effort, it will
add as much to your machine as rally-stripes add to
your car - in other words: it's ornamental, and makes
you feel better about yourself. ;)

I have machines of type p166/athlon600/dual-PIII 1GHz
and a PIV notebook here, and one Nehemia box for testing
and I want to downloads 8 ISO's to install a proper version
of Slack on all of them ... *chuckle*


Cheers,
Tink

Leave it at i486. There is no reason to compile to i686 and it cuts off many systems that could otherwise run Slack. If it gave a significant boost it would be one thing, but compiling you kernel optimized for your CPU arch should give you most of the benefits.

EDIT: And i686 would not just break very old machines. I believe it would also make it incompatible with at least some Via C3 processors, which are a far cry from old.

although only two others seem to agree.. I think it's time to bump it up to 586... and as for giving you a choice.. I think you got the wrong two discs... there's a pair of source discs if you REALLY want it optimized for your hardware. it is NOT worth pat's not so abundant time to compile every package three or four times.

586s are still useful and cheap as hell... but.... even though I would bump it up to 586 I don't think it will be done for a while..

Possibly i586, but no lower than that. Preferably stick with 486. If you want to, you can recompile the kernel for a faster macine, but other than that it will barely make a difference anyway, so it's best to keep it low for maximum compatibility.

on a simlar note..does anyone use specific compiler flags for their machines, so that a './configure make' would be optimized for your machine( for programs built from source)?