14.104a Kernel Question - OS2

This is a discussion on 14.104a Kernel Question - OS2 ; Is the 14.104a Kernel W4 basic later kernel safe for use on Warp 4 Fix Pack 17 systems? From a generic standpoint that is... Yes, in the README it notes and I recall a lot of things went into certain ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: 14.104a Kernel Question

  1. 14.104a Kernel Question

    Is the 14.104a Kernel W4 basic later kernel safe for use on Warp 4 Fix Pack 17
    systems? From a generic standpoint that is... Yes, in the README it notes and
    I recall a lot of things went into certain Pentium chipset glitches, but per my
    notes and the README I think most of this was solved.


    Per my notes this system is running on the 14.100c Kernel at present, though it
    traces in SYSINFO to 14.100c and notes it is from CP#2 Post Fix sources. Thus
    the question as to whether to apply this latest one as a sort of
    'standardizing' course of action.



    Thanks!

    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  2. Re: 14.104a Kernel Question

    Sir:

    mike luther wrote:
    > Is the 14.104a Kernel W4 basic later kernel safe for use on Warp 4 Fix
    > Pack 17 systems? From a generic standpoint that is... Yes, in the
    > README it notes and I recall a lot of things went into certain Pentium
    > chipset glitches, but per my notes and the README I think most of this
    > was solved.
    >
    >
    > Per my notes this system is running on the 14.100c Kernel at present,
    > though it traces in SYSINFO to 14.100c and notes it is from CP#2 Post
    > Fix sources. Thus the question as to whether to apply this latest one
    > as a sort of 'standardizing' course of action.
    >
    >


    The 14.100c was the last kernel that supported errata from 386, 486,
    Pentium, and Pentium Pro (from my notes). Those kernels thereafter
    supported Pentium II and later chips, and close clones. What was added
    to the post 100 kernels was errata support for 64-bit processors by
    Intel and AMD, but not the multi-core processors which came later.

    So you need to look to the processor mix that you are supporting. If
    those older processors are long gone, then by all means try the later
    kernels.

    PS. I've had problems with the post 14.100 kernels on my Athlon XP 2000
    machine, that I blamed on the kernel in that something changed within
    DOScalls that made my WinTV crash more often than the older kernels did.
    If I was not using the Hauppauge WinTV, then I would have remained
    with the newer kernels.
    --
    Bill
    Thanks a Million!

  3. Re: 14.104a Kernel Question

    In <1347874p2ddmj35@corp.supernews.com>, on 05/10/2007
    at 10:47 PM, mike luther said:

    >Is the 14.104a Kernel W4 basic later kernel safe for use on Warp 4 Fix
    >Pack 17 systems? From a generic standpoint that is... Yes, in the
    >README it notes and I recall a lot of things went into certain Pentium
    >chipset glitches, but per my notes and the README I think most of this
    >was solved.


    I'm a bit late to this thread, but the best rule of thumb is to run the
    kernel that works for you. Each release has its own set of issues. As
    you've found 100c is stable for most folks and widely used. I have not
    heard of any issues with 104a, but that does not mean that there are none.


    Steven

    --
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steven Levine MR2/ICE 3.00 beta 05 #10183
    eCS/Warp/DIY/14.103a_W4 www.scoug.com irc.ca.webbnet.info #scoug (Wed 7pm PST)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  4. Re: 14.104a Kernel Question

    "William L. Hartzell" schrieb:
    >
    > The 14.100c was the last kernel that supported errata from 386, 486,
    > Pentium, and Pentium Pro (from my notes). Those kernels thereafter
    > supported Pentium II and later chips, and close clones.


    That's totally false, except for that some version couldn't be used
    on Pentium Pro.

    The 14.104(a) can be used on 386 and later.

    Hendrik

  5. Re: 14.104a Kernel Question

    Sir:

    Hendrik Schmieder wrote:
    > "William L. Hartzell" schrieb:
    >> The 14.100c was the last kernel that supported errata from 386,
    >> 486, Pentium, and Pentium Pro (from my notes). Those kernels
    >> thereafter supported Pentium II and later chips, and close clones.

    >
    > That's totally false, except for that some version couldn't be used
    > on Pentium Pro.
    >
    > The 14.104(a) can be used on 386 and later.
    >

    From the 14.104a readme:
    200507808 14.104
    Basically, a re-build of the above from an "official" build
    machine. *This build is safe for Pentium Pros. Note: 486SX CPUs are
    (and have always been) safe ONLY on the W4 kernel.

    200507808 14.104a
    - fixed problem in 14.104 (only) that caused (at least) some VDM
    applications (such as COPY) to fail.


    --
    Bill
    Thanks a Million!

  6. Re: 14.104a Kernel Question

    "William L. Hartzell" schrieb:
    >
    > Sir:
    >
    > Hendrik Schmieder wrote:
    > > "William L. Hartzell" schrieb:
    > >> The 14.100c was the last kernel that supported errata from 386,
    > >> 486, Pentium, and Pentium Pro (from my notes). Those kernels
    > >> thereafter supported Pentium II and later chips, and close clones.

    > >
    > > That's totally false, except for that some version couldn't be used
    > > on Pentium Pro.
    > >
    > > The 14.104(a) can be used on 386 and later.
    > >

    > From the 14.104a readme:
    > 200507808 14.104
    > Basically, a re-build of the above from an "official" build
    > machine. *This build is safe for Pentium Pros. Note: 486SX CPUs are
    > (and have always been) safe ONLY on the W4 kernel.
    >


    W4 kernel in this context means 14.104_W4 kernel.

    Scott means with this sentence that is not safe to use the
    14.104_UNI or 14.104_SMP kernel with 486SX CPUs.

    BTW:
    A 486 CPU is not a 486SX CPUs.
    486SX CPUs are 486 CPUs without the mathematical co-processor.

    Hendrik

+ Reply to Thread