🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4de4qtINN5jn@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
kevin eugene scruggs <scruggs@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>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.

Then you do not run any programs that need any type of memory.  Memory
requirements are dictated more by the end-user programs than they are 
by the OS.  Question, is my linux 1.2.9 a big, bad, overhyped OS?  

Granted some OS's are more bloated than others (from the
Winxx/OS/2 fat boys, down to the slim linux kernels)  but even on a
*NIX box, if you are doing anything graphical or using GCC for any
med-large projects, 8 meg will cause you to take a shovel or two out
of your swap.

Yes, I too would rather do everything in physical memory, that is why 
it is used before swap is turned to.  I upgraded to 24M on my Linux
server box and now rarely bite into swap.  If you are any type of
a power user, you will leave the confines of 8M quite often on any
machine. (unless you are running CPM on an ol' 820) ;)


>	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)

Well, I agree with you, but would add that user machines 
should be designed around the application suites that the workstations 
will be using, not the user.  This is true, no matter what OS you are
talking about.  The point, system requirements are based more upon the 
intended applications, not the OS.



-- 
Mike - mikemc@macshack.com  -  Home of the JEO-Counter, graphic WWW counter
 /---------------------------------------\   My opinions belong to me, 
| Visit us at http://www.macshack.com     |  myself and I, not my employer,
 \......................................./   the government or my wife...:)