🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <GERHARD.GRUBER.95Jun21143102@atusel16.aut.alcatel.at>,
Gerhard Gruber <Gerhard.Gruber@aut.alcatel.at> wrote:
:In article <3s90rc$obs@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> tjrc1@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (Tim Cutts (Zoology)) writes:
:
:>From: tjrc1@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (Tim Cutts (Zoology))
:>Date: 21 Jun 1995 11:46:52 GMT
:>Organization: U. of Cambridge, England
:
:>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.
:
:Then I wonder how it is possible that AmigaOS fits in 512KB (or 1MB)? And don't
:tell me that it's all the "special chips". I think even adding VM
:capabilites to it (provided the processor supports it) wouldn't amount
:to that size.


Partially because AmigaOS (at least the exec kernel) is in ROM, the filesystem
and OS are single-user, the GUI while nice is nowhere near as robust as X.

Were AmigaOS to match any unix/X combo feature for feature I have the
nagging suspicion that it too would take 8M+ to be comfortable.

It does run circles around DOS/Windoze though. 

brahman,
I liked my Amiga, I love my linux.