3 ms·
I had a K6 233 MHz I couldn't get to run reliably in windows without underclocking to 200. But it was rock solid on Linux. Always wondered why....
by QuercusMax 5y ago
I had a K6 233 MHz I couldn't get to run reliably in windows without underclocking to 200. But it was rock solid on Linux. Always wondered why....
- ddingus 5y agoI had an old Pentium 90 that would crash on NT consistently. The diagnosis was a crappy bus that resulted in various errors. Just for fun, I loaded Red Hat 5.2 on to the machine and it ran just fine. The syslog was full of bizzare errors, chattering the whole time too.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoIf something like Windows98 probably because of it not using the HLT instruction of the CPU vs. Linux doing the right thing, resulting in a cooler CPU on average when running under Linux. See http://www.benchtest.com/rain.html http://www.benchtest.com/rain.html Reasoning by MS was low quality of the countless low-end power supplies, and maybe voltage regulator modules on mainboards, being 'unreasonably' stressed by load changes that fast.
- feisuzhu 5y agoI remember when I was using Windows 98, the media player [1] I was using is shipping with a tray icon which has a menu item written 'Save power when CPU is idle'[2]. It did exactly that (HLT thing). After ticking the menu, CPU just go cold. [1]: 豪杰超级解霸2000 [2]: https://www.wendangwang.com/doc/e6d559d6f2cd9ba7007939d7/3 https://www.wendangwang.com/doc/e6d559d6f2cd9ba7007939d7/3