[aclug-L] Re: Linux Time-Table

[flimzy@xxxxxxxxxx]

I guess for me, a good benchmark would be something along the lines of
"What is the least amount of hardware/software that can be used to run the
latest applications for your particular needs?"
In the case of most "average joe" users who do word processing, email, and
web browsing, a P100 w/ 32mb RAM is usually sufficient, if you use the
right software.  Win95 and IE5.5 are usually sufficient, and WordPerfect
10 is a fine office suite, as new as OfficeXP, but without the huge memory
footprint, and work with the vast majority of web sites.
If you want to use IE6, you'll need to install Win98, and probably use a
P166 with 48mb-64mb RAM to get the same performance.
Having said that, I'll reply to some of the specific things below...


>> The fact that X requires about 128mb RAM minimum to operate is a
>> problem,
>
> Not true, even for XFree86.  Check out:
>
> http://www.superant.com/smalllinux/tinyX01.html
>   This person runs X in 4 MB

But how much swapping is needed?  I can run X on my 486 w/ 24mb RAM... I
can even run Netscape, xchat, and whatever else... it just takes forever,
b/c it's swapping all the time.

> Debian even contains xserver-tinyx-fbdev.
>
> KDrive TinyX is supposed to have a memory footprint of less than 1 MB.
>
> More information:
>  http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/kdrive.html

I'll have to look into those.


>> My 486 laptop, as an old example, has 24mb RAM and runs Win95
>> "comfortably." It takes me about 30 seconds to open a web browser.
>>
>> In X on the same system, it takes a good 5 minutes to open a web
>> browser, due to swapping.
>
> What web browser?

IE5 in Windows, Netscape 4.7 in Linux.  Although I try to use Dillo
whenever possible in Linux.  Dillo is about the same speed as IE5 in Win95
and less functional though.

>> applications on a 486 with Windows (slowly, granted) but not in X,
>> makes it at least a somewhat valid comparison, IMO.
>
> Try that with Office 2002 or the latest version of Photoshop :-)

Office XP may not work on a P100, but WordPerfect Office 2002 does just
fine, and is just as functional.  Asside from system resources, I happen
to prefer WP2002 over MS Office.
Photoshop/GIMP won't effectively work on a P100 with any OS, except for
very basic functionality, which you might as well do with PaintShopPro or
something much smaller anyway.


>> Of course, compared to Windows XP, X is a great improvement, as far as
>> system requirements are concerned.  But I think that, too, is a flawed
>> comparison, b/c Windows XP doesn't use the resources it consumes for
>> anything useful :)
>
> Heh
>
>> Anyway... I just don't see X as a good option for a general-purpose
>> GUI.
>
> It sounds like you don't see anything newer than Windows 98 as a good
> option either, because they won't run on a P100 with 32MB of RAM.  I'm
> just not sure that's a good benchmark.

I would probably use NT4 as a better "modern comparison" to X, as it's
functional, and stable enough that I would consider it a usable OS.  It
will run on a P100 (or less) with 32mb RAM, and will run most modern
software (that which it won't run is simply b/c M$ has specifically not
supported it, not b/c the OS is incapable), and contains most features
that a modern OS does.
-- Jonathan



-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi