From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263295AbUEPHif (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 03:38:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263340AbUEPHif (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 03:38:35 -0400 Received: from smtp2.att.ne.jp ([165.76.15.138]:13798 "EHLO smtp2.att.ne.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263295AbUEPHid (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 03:38:33 -0400 Message-ID: <035e01c43b18$69ede9f0$b7ee4ca5@DIAMONDLX60> From: "Norman Diamond" To: Subject: Re: [patch] kill off PC9800 Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 16:35:19 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > "Randy.Dunlap" 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 And the hardware is obsolete, isn't it?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.]