<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/06/2015 10:34 PM, Stephen John
Smoogen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANnLRdggSTgvvNodx47WM=M=gUbJg975i-4Bfbnf2ACKvcpRvw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Jun 6, 2015 10:06, "Lamar Owen" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lowen@pari.edu">lowen@pari.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 06/06/2015 03:38 AM, Toni Spets wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> If you think it this way, why bother with the i686
build at all? Your dual core 2010 vintage Intel Atom D510 can
run 64-bit CentOS 7 anyway. This is why dropping SSE2
requirement would be benefitical as it would allow running it
with a larger amount of x86 CPUs that can't run the 64-bit
variation at all.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Older Xeon systems that are non-64bit capable are one set
of possible targets. If PAE is disabled, Pentium M is likewise
a good target (we're running Windows 7 Pro here on some Dell
Latitude D610's with reasonable performance; CentOS would run on
these quite well, as they are single-core 2GHz Pentium M with
2GB of RAM and somewhat reasonable ATI X300 video, if PAE isn't
required). Of course, NetBurst Xeon is a performance pig, but a
non-profit that has an older but high-quality server with
NetBurst Xeon in it might not have the discretionary funds to
obtain a similar quality system with a more modern and
power-efficient CPU; they'll run it until it breaks and it's no
longer discretionary to replace it.<br>
><br>
> Pentium M on the other hand performs very well at 2GHz. We
have a number of D600's, but they are just not quite up to the
task of running Win7 reasonably well. That era, 2004 or so,
seems to be the break-point for boxes that are still very usable
running modern workloads. D600's still make excellent service
laptops for things requiring serial ports (like our datum
SSU-2000 timeserver with a PRS45A cesium primary refclock). I
have a couple of D600's parked at a co-lo just for that sort of
troubleshooting purpose where RS-232 is still needed, and
another D600 running the software for our Advin Pilot EPROM
programmer, which needs a parallel port connection (I did
mention specialty hardware before.....).<br>
><br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">The part not addressed in this is getting the 2 main
windowing systems to work well in such 'constrained'
environments as neither KDE or gnome think such hardware worth
dealing with issues on (if it works great if it doesn't tough
from previous experience trying to get help). So you are ending
up having to customize more and .more to the point it isn't
really centos anymore.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Lighter desktop environments with far fewer resource requirements
exist and are heavily used. And if xfce/lxde or others exist for the
ARM platform, I am 100% sure those are ( or will be ) available for
i686 as well. I even have friends with PCs assembled from components
manufactured in 2014 with SSD and 2 digits worth of RAM ( expressed
in GB ) who use xfce ! That the DE will not come from base CentOS
... OK. It won't. So what? A lot of the people who use LAMP stacks
based on CentOS replace the core php ( and lately even mysql ) and
we do not ban them :) Do we offer support for something we do not
ship ? No, we don't. But that's not a reason to not allow it to be
done by others. Let us be the foundation !<br>
<br>
However, if you want to say that all the i686 stack will need to be
[re]generated using the recompiled compiler... yes, I am with you on
this one. It will probably be the case and to be honest I am not
sure it's worth it. But that would be the exact use case for a
"i386" parallel set of packages, as once existed in parallel with
i686 ( and athlon!).<br>
<br>
For WITW ( and almost unrelated to the matter at hand ), my general
manager who is a US citizen but also a freak defined by "I want a
very very very light laptop" ( 12 years ago the guy used to travel
WITHOUT the battery on his Compaq laptop... ) tasked me 4 days ago
to look for a 11.6" (!!) laptop similar to his Sharp MM10 which just
died. And NOT a chromebook but something able to run Outlook! <br>
<br>
Bottom line, let's not dismiss old hardware just because it's more
convenient. If there is a use case and there are people willing to
enroll at the task of maintaining it , I'd say "go for it". But once
again, as a parallel set of packages, not by replacing what already
was built and is shipped for the i686 arch.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
wolfy, proud owner of a VIA C3 based fully functional
computer<br>
</body>
</html>