show last weekend

[mikebw at bilow.bilow.uu.ids.net (Mike Bilow)]

Charles Young wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:

 CY> I want to buy an intell-ish system and have found that
 CY> nobody selling hardware understands what makes a board, a
 CY> chip, and O/S *really* hum together, especially when it
 CY> comes to running linux.

If you configure the machine for OS/2 or Windows NT, it will generally perform
well under Linux -- assuming driver support exists for the hardware.  The same
basic rules apply: use PCI, use SCSI instead of IDE, get lots of RAM, get lots
of secondary cache, and -- if you plan to run X/Windows -- use an accelerated
video chipset on a PCI card.

 CY> I need advice on boards and chips.  I am considering an Asus
 CY> board (P/I-P55TVP4) with an Intel Pentium 133 (possibly MMX)
 CY> and 512 cache / 32Mb of 60ns RAM, but no one has the guts to
 CY> say "no performance hit with linux using this board over an
 CY> Intel board" and there are *several* intel boards (with HX
 CY> and VX based chipsets - which are also available on many
 CY> "bargain-brand" boards)  Has anyone used an Asus board? 

The Asus motherboards are high quality.  They will often outperform Intel
boards.  The 430HX chipset if much faster than the 430VX chipset under a real
operating system; both are often called "Triton 2."

Note that you will pay for a lot of stuff you may or may not need on this
board.  In particular, using IDE is a huge mistake under a real operating
system.  You can buy one of the cheap NCR series PCI SCSI controllers for about
$50-80, and the Asus boards support these during boot.  You can also buy a
better PCI SCSI controller, especially if you want Ultra or Wide support, such
as the Adaptec AHA-2940UW for about $200; the Linux drivers for the Adaptecs is
doing quite well write now, although you may have to recompile tyhe kernel.

 CY> What about the Cyrix 686 family of chips? Any problems? 

Do not use the Cyrix 6x86.

 CY> Good experiences?  I'm only running linux and W95. 

You will find that many things are different under Windows 95.  For example,
IDE imposes no real penalty and may actually be faster, since Windows 95 will
not multitask I/O anyway.  The key ability of SCSI to multitask I/O without
holding the CPU makes no difference under Windows 95, but it will under any
real operating system.

 CY> This could fill a book, I know.  But what is a guy to
 CY> do...just reach in and grab one - or buy an intel board and
 CY> chip out of fear?  I have an ISDN line ready to go, free
 CY> connectivity through work and holiday cash still burning a
 CY> hole in my pocket!

Linux runs very well on nearly anything that supports OS/2 or Windows NT. 
Linux will run tolerably well on surprising things: I had quite acceptable
performance recently when I installed Linux and XFree86 on a 386DX-25 with 8 MB
RAM, and I was not really expecting it.

 CY> I can read most of a schematic and compile a little C code,
 CY> but I am essentially lost with all the marketing hogwash.  I
 CY> could use any suggestions you folks might have.  (For you
 CY> Digital guys, my next system will be an alpha, but I have to
 CY> hand down my old stuff to my 8-year-old.)

Your kid will like the Alpha: it doubles as a room heater.
 
-- Mike