🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4d9ui4$e63@macshack.com> mikemc@macshack.com writes:
|In article <4d428mINNe14@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu|,
|kevin eugene scruggs <scruggs@cis.ohio-state.edu| wrote:
||In article <4d3m6o$bb6@macshack.com| mikemc@macshack.com writes:
|||In article <DKxzFK.2r6@eskimo.com|, G. Baldwin <drizzit@eskimo.com| wrote:
||||Mike McCammant (mikemc@macshack.com) wrote:
||||: In article <DKuFyA.D52@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU|,
||||: David Salvador Flores <dsf3g@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU| wrote:
||||
||||: [snip]
||||: |.... even though 95 barely runs on a 486 with 8 megs.
||||
||||: '95 runs fine on a 486-33 w/8 Meg of RAM.  As a matter of fact, it also runs
||||: the VC++ v2.2 IDE in 8M of ram just fine.  Not that I like Windows, but 
||||: you should at least have your facts straight.  
||||
||||Turn off your swap file and see "How far DON'T you want to go today?"
|||
|||Why would I want to turn off the swap file?  That would be stupid ;) 
|
||	70ns vs 10ms.
|
|
|Like I said, why would I want to turn off my swap file?   Are you tring 
|to tell me that 8M of 70ns ram is better/faster than 8M of 70ns ram PLUS
|16M of 8ms Swap?  I guess you like those out of memory/memory allocation
|errors?  If you are not trying to multi-task, then you may be fine, 
	I'd prefer to multi-task in 4 or 8 megs of physical memory.
	Too bad your big bad overhyped OS's cant do that.

	User machines should be designed around the user, not OS
        paradigms that are more appropirate for systems that actually
	resemble those where the paradigms were developed. (ie
	most clones dont have the hardware concurrency to support
	bloated overblown monolithic OS's)
|sometimes.    
|
|Disable your virtual memory management system in a "UNIX" system, OS/2, 
|Winxx or the MAC OS.  Unless you have a ton of ram, IMHO you have just done 
|something pretty stupid.
-- 
   |||      mmm...Yoda of Borg am I.  Futile is resistance.
  / | \					Assimilate you, I will...