albertlee Posted June 23, 2004 Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 Moreover, there are also Alpha and AMD64 and more!!! what are they actually? Are they CPU? but never heard of i586 or Alpha...... Can any body please answer, including my previous message? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cohen Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 They're the technical designation for x86 processors. You remember before Pentium came along? Before that Intel's lead processor was the 486 and before that it was the 386 and so on right back to the 8086. The Pentium series are really the same kind of design only they started giving them more PR friendly names like Pentium. 586's are your bog standard Pentium chips (early range speeds between something like 90MHz and 133MHz). 686's are Pentium Pro, II, III and IV (and AMD equivalents). It doesn't really matter which one you use as a i386 distro should run on a 586/686 however it's best to get a distro appropriate to your processor as it will be optimised to run with your CPU. Alpha CPUs are RISC chips so I doubt you'd need that version, see here for more info: http://www.linux-tutorial.info/cgi-bin/display.pl?122&0&0&0&3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 23, 2004 Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 are Alpha CPUs mac's? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cohen Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 23, 2004 Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 Then which computer uses Alpha? windows? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cohen Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Alpha *is* the kind of computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 23, 2004 Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 then what is its OS? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 then what is its OS? Albert Well, the new Alpha systems use Unix. It is proprietary and will NOT work on your system. Question: why are you making this soooo much complicated than it ought to be??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 24, 2004 Author Share Posted June 24, 2004 Admiral, I just want to know what are alpha's, so I can make sure my choice of release of Linux is right...(I choese i386)... Any way, as I wondered, since Linux/Unix claims about its mobility, why there is no Linux/FreeBSD for Macintosh? As far as I see... Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Admiral, I just want to know what are alpha's Here's one Co. where you can buy an Alpha system. Oh by the way, I do not think you'll be able to afford one, even their cheapest system. http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/ Any way, as I wondered, since Linux/Unix claims about its mobility, why there is no Linux/FreeBSD for Macintosh? As far as I see... What? There is no FreeBSD for a Mac. Well, at least not as a standalone system. MacOS X is built is on FreeBSD, I believe, but it's like 40% Unix, 60% Mac OS. There IS Linux for Macs. http://www.penguinppc.org/ http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/ Plus there are a few more. Search the web. Oh by the way, you might want to make frequent visits to this page: http://freshmeat.net/ http://slashdot.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 There is no FreeBSD for a Mac. Well, at least not as a standalone system. MacOS X is built is on FreeBSD, I believe, but it's like 40% Unix, 60% Mac OS. There IS[/b'] Linux for Macs. Yes there is: http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/ppc.html Also, OS X is built on Darwin, which is Apple's adaptation of FreeBSD, although the kernel is unchanged. They then built all the UI stuff and the window server from scratch, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 24, 2004 Author Share Posted June 24, 2004 By the way, Alpha CPUs vs PowerPC, which one is faster? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 http://macspeedzone.com/archive/4.0/WinvsMacSPECint.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 dave, that link seems a bit older, because it does not show pentium 4 and G5... Any way, doesn't matter What I want to ask is, I have just downloaded a version of Linux, it has 5 CDs, and each one is more than 700 mb, about 791 mb..........and the file type is bin, and I suppose to burn it using cue file given.... Then question is: would the file be compressed when it is burning? Will be apreciated for furthur responds Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Check this: http://www.linuxiso.org/viewdoc.php/isofaq.html#whatisiso {edit} that should make it less troublesome than my original responce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 admiral, I know how to burn a CD and anything technical for it in general..... and, the file I download is not iso image, but a cue file, which is an instruction like file to tell Nero to burn the bin image....... I know how to do it, just dont know what happen if image file is bigger than the CD(700mb) capacity... Any furthur help? Apreciate in advance.. Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Get 800MB cds and overburn them using Nero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 Well, overburn? You mean burn a larger file into a smaller capacity of CDs? then why not overburn on a 700mb CD? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Because in all likelyhood, there isn't an extra 80mb on a 700MB disk. Technically, you can only have 700MB tops on a CD. However, if you buy an 800MB disk, there is the facility to overburn another 100MB on top of the 700 there normally are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 Ok, the problem of over large file is solved, finally..... I use a program call WinISO and I transform the bin file into ISO file, guess what, the file becomes smaller than 700mb and the contents of both are still the same, dont know the reason why.... Any way, here comes my another installing problem....What I am trying to install is Linux Mandrake 10.0 official, and I was trying to install from harddisk, and when I point to the Mandrake iso file, it says it cannot find the directory of Mandrake/base/ in that iso, but when I ckecked the iso file, it does have the directory Mandrake/base/.... Any experience Mandrake user can help? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 Mandrake is also derived from Red Hat and I despise Red Hat. It was good to start out with(back in 95)' date=' but now I hate it with a passion. Mostly since their version 5, that filthyfied me and I will never again touch it, or it's close uhm, siblings.[/quote'] For this quote, I dont really get what is the disadvantage of Mandrake.... Can any body point it out? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 That's just admiral_ju00's opinion. From my own experience I have to say that Mandrake is nothing like Red Hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 I'd say "use gentoo", but I think I already have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 what a pity,...... Linux seems a bad result on me since it makes me struggling with the hardware compability....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 If you can install BSD, then you should be able to install some distro of linux. I don't know what problem you had with your CD, but it shouldn't influence it to that extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now