Re: [patch] kill off PC9800

[Norman Diamond]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >  PC9800 sub-arch is incomplete, hackish (at least in IDE), maintainers
> >  don't reply to emails and haven't touched it in awhile.
>
> And the hardware is obsolete, isn't it?  Does anyone know when they were
> last manufactured, and how popular they are?

Of course they aren't popular any more, but the last ones were still
respectably powerful and can run stuff like Windows 2000 Server.

When were PowerPC, MIPS (other than embedded), and Alpha chips last
manufactured, and how popular are they?

[By the way the above commendts do not reflect my personal opinion.  A few
years ago a friend got one free.  It wasn't one of the last and repectably
powerful ones, it had a 486 and 10MB of RAM.  It was amazingly hard to get
Windows 95 installed onto it, because I had no experience with the
architecture (other than having read a few things such as hard disk
partitions being DOS letters A, B, and then presumably E and upwards, and it
turned out that this wasn't true when booting from a floppy, and the PC98
version of Windows 95 confused itself too when doing its normal reboots from
the hard disk part way through installation...).  After being installed,
Windows 95 ran impressively well in 10MB of RAM.  The GUI responded to mouse
clicks immediately, none of the sluggishness normally associated with X11
Windows and XP Windows.  Even opening a document in WordPad came up without
waiting.  However, the installation process was so painful that I told my
friend my opinion of his computer.  Even when he got it free, it was worth
less than he paid for it.]

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/