As stated in the other thread, Pat V was wondering whether to switch from i486 to i686, so this poll may help answer that question.

EDIT:
Mostly those who run newer versions of Slackware should answer, because running an ancient version of slackware on an i486 is much more likely than on a newer version. It might be helpful if you actually do run an i486 to state what version of slackware ...

Make that "Pat V was wondering" - he wrote about that on twitter 10 months ago. Apparently without relevant feedback. If he still considers it he is silent about the idea.
And like business_kid said in another post, building for i586 instead of i686 will at least not leave the Pentium, Pentium MMX, AMD K5/K6 and some of the VIA CPUs like the C3 out in the cold (I'm still running a C3).

Eric

Ok, it is fixed. You don't get much feedback on twitter, and this poll is only to see how the user base is distributed with respect to architecture ... which may help with this decision if it is being considered.

As I said in the other thread, I have an old P3-800 mothballed, but if I were to bring it out of retirement I wouldn't run it on anything newer than slackware 12.2.

My main system is x86_64.

I think it would be advisable for people who vote for other than i686 and x86_64 to state which Slackware version they are using, more importantly if they are not using the latest.
Otherwise this poll doesnt mean that much even if Pat IS considering to switch.
There are people still running 8.1 ..

edit. oh damn, H_TeXMeX_H said the same thing in his edit of the first post.

I think we should clarify, processors like Pentium Pro and Pentium II are i686.
So i468 and i586 is for processor older than these two.

I run -current, both i686 and x86_64 on same PC
K8 amd athlon64 3300+ 2.4ghz

I also have a K7 amd athlonXP 2400+ 1.8ghz which runs -current

EDIT
OH!
the differences on same machine betweenn i686 and x86_64
are

ram is somewhat higher on x86_64, but it runs "smoother" and faster

also, the x86_64 is multilib with only firefox/flash 32bit pkgs

i686 here (Intel Atom N270)

In the poll I specified i586 and i686, but I do still have a fully functional slackware firewall on i486 - out of service but idle and fully functional. Would I rely on i486 support in future versions? Probably not. I do have some serviceable antiques that I would mess about with using antique slackware, but nothing I would put newer versions on.

1 members found this post helpful.

I use Slackware 13.1 in a Pentium 4, so i686.
And in my laptop I use Slackware64 13.1 so x86_64.

I thought that no one would vote i486, but look I'm wrong.

The people who vote i486 and i586 can tell what version of Slackware use and what processor have?

If you are using a old version of Slackware, it's possible that you never install the newer version in that machine.

1 members found this post helpful.

I run Slack64-current on my desktop machine (Core2).

I selected i686 also because I have my 300MHz PII Klamath firewall machine here with Slackware 11.0 on it, and still fire it up sometimes. That's the funny CPU in the big plug-in cartridge. LOL @ introductory price of $1981.00 in 1997!!

1 members found this post helpful.

I have a bunch of 486 boxes. I don't use them, I didn't vote for 486 and they don't have Slackware. But I can't get rid of them. What appeals to me with those machines is that they don't require active cooling. They could do service as thin clients, as long as I don't need heavy duty graphics. But my main machine could do that as well as pull it's own weight.

For purposes of this poll - 586/686/64.

I have Slackware 12.1 running on a couple of Pentiums (Pentium 120mhz, Pentium MMX 300mhz). Although not in daily use any more.

But for long life and usefulness...

I still run 4 old notebooks, Pentium 120mhz.64MB RAM, but they have Mandrake 7.2 and will never be "upgraded". FWIW, I still maintain my own package repository for those and get frequent use out of them, mostly as rapid development custom data acquisition platforms. I can quickly write a serial or parallel driver for special applications, capture and/or control a remote process via the internet.

So it is nice to have been able to extend those beyond the breaking point. In general, I say support everything until there is a clear reason not to, whatever that reason may ultimately be - someone will benefit from it.

1 members found this post helpful.

haha nice