🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <GERHARD.GRUBER.95Jun21130504@atusel16.aut.alcatel.at> Gerhard.Gruber@aut.alcatel.at (Gerhard Gruber) writes:
>In article <sheldon.803657460@esoteric.agron.iastate.edu> sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) writes:
>
>> I think that you will find that those programs which take up 50 Megs of RAM
>>on todays computer do CONSIDERABLY more than their counterparts 15 years ago
>>running on a 64K RAM system with a 180K floppy, or even 5 years ago with 1
>>meg of ram, and a 40 meg harddrive.
>
>I don't know if you do programing by yourself. But I know that this
>argument is not that valid because the programs don't offer that much
>more functionality to justify THAT much memory requirements.
>
>I see that, for an OS, it would be good to have more memory. But to
>use this memory for the OS only is nonsense. You can't tell me that an
>GUI, Multitasker and some device drivers need up 4 or 8 MB. Do you know
>how much code fits in a memory this size (including text)?

Well, it seems that a good OS that's written in C does seem to take
this sort of memory.  Consider the equivalent for Linux:
Linux+XFree86 requires 8Mb to be at all useable.  Yes it works in 4,
but it's painful.  As soon as you run a sizeable client 16Mb is more
practical.  I don't think Linux has featuritis, although many would
say that X is an absolute monstrosity.