Question re machines and optimizations

Forum: Apps
Topic: Question re machines and optimizations
started by: WDef

Posted by WDef on June 18 2007,21:53

Is anyone out there actually not running dsl on a pentium-class machine, i mean apart from the atticware 486DX crowd?

Sometimes I forget to specify --build=i386, or sometimes it doesn't work, or sometimes ./configure puts march=pentium whether I set it or not.

I suspect the number of non-i686 folk is pretty small?

If so I won't fret too much if my extensions are compiled for i686 - well, I probably won't fret anyway.

Or is gcc-with-libs restricting my choices in any case?

Posted by andrewb on June 19 2007,00:19

I'd guess there are quite a few i586 machines using DSL

Posted by curaga on June 19 2007,14:59

Some of mine, for example, are pentiums..

But if you don't specify any build= march= optimizations, results run on 386...

Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on June 19 2007,17:27

I think this depends on the target application. If it's rather large/intensive, then most probably you're safe by using 586/686. But since DSL is targetted to 486 as a minimum, that's probably the best minimum optimization to keep in mind.

Posted by WDef on June 19 2007,22:27

Configure scripts do not default to i386 - some look at what you're running and compile for that - in my case i686.

gcc run au naturelle will default to i386, but I'm talking about using ./configure without too much messing around with all those options.

Unless you specify --build=i386, but in my experience that does not always work, depending on whether or not it's a typical configure script.

Many people are running i586s? By that I meant the early P5x Pentiums, not all Pentium-compatible architectures. Includes Pentium MMX I guess.

wikipedia:

Quote

In programming, it is sometimes necessary to distinguish the original Pentium processor architecture from later (P6 or P68-based) Pentium-branded architectures. For these cases, i586 is a common, though spurious, way to refer to the early Pentium processors, as well as processors made by Intel's competitors that can run machine code targeted to the early Pentiums.

OK, so it's "spurious" terminology.

Actually, a poll to determine what processors are being used now might be a good idea ...

I applaud the 486 atticware people 'coz it's nice, but I really think they are a specialty group now.

Most of the time I remember to compile for 386. On some occasions, I don't really want to though eg encryption or media apps.

Quote

If it's rather large/intensive, then most probably you're safe by using 586/686.

Compiling those for i686 has been my de facto policy.

I know compiling for i686 can create real problems on the AMD Geode. People can always post if something's not running on their arch I guess ...

Posted by lucky13 on June 20 2007,17:01

I wouldn't fret about that depending on the type of extension you're compiling. For example, I don't run X (or any X apps) on a couple of my CLASSIC (not atticware

) computers. I think concessions should be made if you're compiling CLI apps, though.

Posted by curaga on June 21 2007,11:54

I run X on my i586. Also a search for "16mb X" gives a lot of {4,5}86 comps running DSL and mostly X too..

Posted by WDef on June 23 2007,12:15

Quote

my CLASSIC (not atticware

) computers

LOL! Ok, I stand corrected ;+)

I still have very fond memories of some old machines and will probably pick one up when I come across one - eg the MacSE90 - what a classic!

@Curaga: if you feel like testing some of my extensions on 586 sometime, that would be good.

Posted by lucky13 on June 23 2007,15:09

Quote

I still have very fond memories of some old machines and will probably pick one up when I come across one - eg the MacSE90 - what a classic!

I was digging through my office closet and found my old Mac (512k) transport bag -- my first portable that had its own screen and built-in floppy. Forgot I still have that bag even though I sold the Mac around 1987. I only have a couple old PPCs now, practically unusable or even upgradeable as they're configured with Apple's quirky choices of hardware (e.g., NuBus, AudioVision video ports, etc.).

I was thinking of using a classic Mac case for Mini-ITX (and DSL, of course). I've seen some horrid case mods to use flat panels in classic Macs, but I've seen one that retained the old greyscale beauty and classic look by using a monochrome CRT. I may use one of the PPC cases even though it'll mean I can't take advantage of the PCI slots on the Mini-ITX (case is too thin).

Beauty: < http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/mac-itx/ >
Beast: < http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/wraithse/ >

Posted by curaga on June 23 2007,15:45

So true with that beauty-beast comparison ;)
Isn't the whole point of using a cool retro case to make it look original?

Posted by lucky13 on June 23 2007,16:02

It leaves a lot to be desired aesthetically. The guy who put together the "beauty" obviously had a well thought-out plan and executed it very well.

I don't know what the beast/Wraith guy's original intentions were. Maybe he had the same intentions and vision in his mind as the guy who put together the "beauty," but it's just a less-skilled execution of it. Some people are more skilled at making things fit and look right; others just hack it together and only care that it works.

I have to admit, though, beast/Wraith has a kind of "Mad Max" (or is that "Mad Mac"?) appeal to it. As an avid Apple-hater, I have a sinister appreciation for it like that -- I've wanted to destroy some of the Macs I've owned. But the one area where I give Apple a lot of credit is on style and aesthetics, so it works both ways -- love-hate (with the love part being very twisted).

Posted by WDef on June 25 2007,21:18

Quote

Mac SE90

Actually I think it was SE30, not 90. It was one of the last of the all-in-one luttle Macs, with the little built in screen which I think(?) was possible to get in color, but standard was greyscale. Always wanted one when they were around but never had one. The oldest Macs are collector's items now.

I'm also ambivalent about Macs generally. But gotta admit - they always have style, and were always better to use for officey type things than Windows..

Posted by lucky13 on June 25 2007,22:44

Style is great until you realize how Apple's quirky choices locked users in to Apple-only or Apple-approved hardware. And I don't mean their EULA, which is still far more restrictive than Microsoft's will ever be (Apple only lets you install their operating systems on their own hardware, etc.). Instead of using PCI buses like everyone else, they stupidly chose NuBus (my PPC is a NuBus Mac, it also has the funky AudioVision video connector that forbids me from using a VGA monitor without buying a cable from Apple, etc.). Apple is to be commended for physical and UI style, for their attention to things like ergonomics, for studying how people relate to data and molding their software so it's more intuitive (though I have an article from a 1991 PC magazine comparing intuitive experiences between Mac, OS/2, and Windows -- OS/2 won and Mac came in third). As a hardware vendor, though, Apple *bleeping* sucks.

< http://lucky13.blogsavy.com/2007/03/13/maddox-rocks-mac-users-suck/ >
< http://lucky13.blogsavy.com/2007/03/22/anti-mac-rant/ >
As for as office work, I think it's debatable. I can't argue that WYSIWYG desktop publishing was infinitely easier on Macs than on PCs with WordPerfect for DOS. WPWin and AmiPro (and Page Maker for Windows), though, brought WYSIWYG to the PC. I think I lost some amount of productivity when I stopped relying entirely on my WP (DOS) keystrokes and started paying more attention to what was actually on the monitor.