Kernel question, i386 vs. i686
location: linuxquestions.com - date: August 30, 2005
One of the update options in Synaptic is for an i686 kernel (I'm currently running the i386 kernel on a Pentium 4). If I install & upgrade the 686 kernel, will this adversely affect driver and/or application support (i.e. am I going to have to wade through a whole new group of re-installs), or will everything "just work?"
Thanks in advance....
Question: Kernel build i386 vs i686
location: linuxquestions.com - date: July 10, 2005
I am running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 AS. I'm trying to update my kernel based upon the new release publised by Red Hat. My hardware is dual Pentium II 333 mhz mounted on and Intel motherboard. Everything works just fine.
First I could not get the kernel to build from Red Hat source rpms by just doing a simple rebuild. As follows:
rpmbuild --rebuild kernel-2.6.9-11.EL.src.rpm
error: Architecture is not included: i386
I get the above error message.
I later tried the rebuild option with the target i386 and got the very same mesage as above. As follows:
rpmbuild --rebuild --target i386 kernel-2.6.9-11.EL.src.rpm
Building target platforms: i386
Building for target i386
error: Architecture is not included: i386
I changed the target platform to i686 and the kernel is building as I create this post.
My question is what's the difference between i386 and i686 for the Kernel bu
Teach me: i386 vs i686
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: May 8, 2009
Even after reading the Wikipedia articles on both i386 and i686, I still don't quite grasp the definition behind i386 and i686.
Ubuntu releases i386 and x86_64, nicknamed "32-bit" and "64-bit".
Arch releases i686 and x86_64, also nicknamed "32-bit" and "64-bit", I think?
So what exactly is the difference? After reading some posts on UF and on the web, it seems to be that i386 is just the "lowest common denominator", in that with Ubuntu compiled for that architecture, you get to support almost ALL systems, down to the oldest Pentiums, whereas i686 begins at a certain technological level, and won't support legacy systems, but runs faster, since it's optimized for faster architectures.
Am I correct, or am I completely missing the point?
i386 kernel vs i686 does it matter?
location: linuxquestions.com - date: August 26, 2005
According to /proc/cpuinfo I have
Pentium III (Copermine) 597.429 Mhz processor
When I installed Fedora Core 3 (it's been upgraded to Core 4), I just installed as usual and used the system.
One day I typed yum list to see which packages I hadn't installed and I was shocked to see kernel there - how could I have not installed the kernel?
Now, I haven't updated the kernel since the last time one came out for FC4, which was around 15 July, but here's what I think I remember from that time.
When I did yum update kernel - the arch was i386
When I did yum list - the kernel arch was i686
So, obviously I'm running the 386 kernel. But I'm running (as far as I know) a 686 machine. Does it matter? If I switched to the other kernel what would be the benefits/downsides?
WTF? Debian Live i386 = i486/i686 kernel/initrd inside? whats the diff?
location: linuxquestions.com - date: December 23, 2009
I'm confused again
I got a debian Live i386 standard iso
cracked open the squashfs
so, if its i386
why does it have 486/686 inside?
is it all the same o what??
noob question kernel 2.6 vs 3.x speed
location: linuxquestions.com - date: November 27, 2014
I've been using slack 14.1 for some months and I felt heavy on my old pc. Of course I've recompiled the kernel to get a small image. Now I'm on 13.37 and it's very fast (both test with lxde only) I supose this is normal (old soft and kernel= light distro). Am I righ?
Quick question, Xubuntu vs Lubuntu 13.04
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: April 26, 2013
Hi, I'm going to test 13.04 on an Acer ZG5. I remember that Lubuntu is more lighter, while Xubuntu is a bit heavier than Lubuntu but still lighter than Ubuntu. The main point is its not for me, its for my friend, who's looking to replace her XP later on. I will try Ubuntu first. After that, Lubuntu or Xubuntu. I'm going to do this by installing it on USB drives. Between Xubuntu and Lubuntu, which is better suited? I'm not going for LibreOffice, but will put in the WPS Office beta for her to try. Xubuntu use the same repository as Ubuntu isn't it? While Lubuntu use a different one. The difference is not important for a casual user is it?
i386 vs amd64
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: November 6, 2011
I am currently running Ubuntu 11.10 64 bit with an intel processor, however when I go to download google chrome (and a few other apps for that matter) I can never seem to get intel 64 bit versions.. am I just being silly or is there a reason for this?
i386 vs amd64
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: August 1, 2009
I am new to linux and have a very basic question. I installed ubuntu jaunty ver. i386.
Works fine, just can install any apps and can't connect to internet, which I'm working on.
I have a acer aspire 5100 with a amd turion64. I installed the 32 bit ver. because that what my vista was. After reading, sounds like i386 is for intel processors. Is this true?
Secondly, if I installing the wrong version how do I install a 32 bit ver. for amd processor.
wondering if I did install jaunty for intel on my amd if this is causing my internet problems and constantly getting stuck with dependency warning which won't go away.
PLease let me know.
[SOLVED] Intel D201GLY2 : i386 vs amd64
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: July 3, 2008
Sorry for this nooooob question.
I'm ready to install Mythbuntu 8.04 on my Intel D201GLY2.
I believe this motherboard is able to do 64bits but this is Intel and definitely not AMD.
Which LiveCD should I start with ? The i386 or the amd64 ?
Again sorry if this is too naive for this forum.
Anyhow thanks for your time in advance,
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10