Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159282
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.folklore.computers |
| Subject | Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? |
| Date | 2016-02-13 23:51 +0100 |
| Organization | Me, Myself and I |
| Message-ID | <8lo4pc-s45.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> (permalink) |
| References | <n9n71i$j1f$1@dont-email.me> <o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> <n9nobn$kl0$1@dont-email.me> |
In article <n9nobn$kl0$1@dont-email.me>, gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: >"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message >news:o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > >You seem to have been brain-washed or conditioned by the world of bloat, >whereas I was brought up on 16-bit minicomputers (PDP11) with memory >of 56K, so I know how much can be achieved in a small space. > >Starting off small will also improve the quality of so-called computer >scientists who otherwise have limited exposure to the real computers >with their experience only of Linux and C. And we know what cannot be done in small address spaces. Just take wifi. There are complex radio protocols, and even more complex encryption ones. And there are at least 4 of each. The code for these are easily a few megabytes. Ditto for USB, firewire, scsi, sata; and a lot of the daemons. But these first ones live inside the kernel, all of them. Plus 10 different file systems. I don't think 40 megabytes for all of this is much bloat. They all bring useful stuff to the table, too. That X use 30 meg is also not unreasonable. 12 of these are buffers for the screen. But that a browser uses 1600 (!) and a word processor use 600 are seriously bloated. Emacs use around 8, which is way big enough for me. In the *n*x world we have the old and the new world. The old world may use a few tens of megabytes, and use them reasonably well. The new one use gigabytes, and have insane bloat. What complexity is there in html, http(s) and javascript that rivals USB by two orders of magnitude? -- mrr >> In article <n9n71i$j1f$1@dont-email.me>, >> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: >>>What fun we could have should a nice, simple, easy 64-bit version >>>of MS-DOS be around; the only thing to my mind that would >>>be lacking would be a graphical Web interface. >>> >>>Imagine; a single linear address space, no software bloat >>>(Even Linux is popping its trouser buttons), and only a few kBytes >>>consumed by the OS! >> >> Keep dreaming. >> >> A full-function, very basic modern OS will take around 4 megabytes >> with only a handful of drivers if it handles a 64-bit address range, >> around 2.5 - 3 if it is a 32 bit range. Even Tops20, VMS, Primos are >> there if you let them develop far enough; tops20 at version 6, >> Primos at version 23, vms at ??? >> >> Add the ~20k drivers that Linux, FreeBSD have, and add two dozen >> subsystems like USB, Firewire, IPv4, Ipv6, SMB, etc; and they are >> not too bad off either of them in terms of kernel and driver >> space used. >> >> The bloat is on top of the kernel, and it is reasonably easy to >> get rid of the bulk of it. >> >> Let me get to the numbers: This samsung chromebook I use as a >> laptop has a bloat level I like. It has a two-processor arm7 with >> 2G ram. 32-bit. Thumb2. >> >> There are 524288 4k pages. After memory map, cpu-reserved pages for >> task switching, lookaside buffers, etc are allocated there are >> 519936. This is mostly memory map organisation use. The initial >> load of linux+initramfs (a boot-time minimal ram file system that >> Linux use to simplify the boot process; so it can proceed further >> before actually adding any disks) takes 29334 pages. >> >> Linux then allocate pages here and there and has a max allocation >> of 36440 pages before it frees the initramfs. This means that this >> particular Linux installation; not even attempted to prune the size; >> has a minimum boot requirement of (524288 - 519936) + 36440 of the >> initial 524288 pages; or 40792, equal to 163168 kilobytes of RAM. >> >> The initramfs is then freed, and Linux use 10305 pages, plus it >> allocates 6350 as a page cache. This is the overflow paging area >> that can contain real user code, so it does not really count in >> kernel use. After boot we therefore have a use of (524288 - 519936) >> + 10305; or 14657 pages, equal to 58628 kilobytes. >> >> Linux code is around half of this, and half again of that are >> drivers. >> >> Then systemd takes over, and all memory use goes haywire. The >> old systems like X are still well within reason, X itself are >> the biggest one of these at ~30M plus ~8M shared libraries. >> There are around 120 active processes, where the browser and >> libreoffice are the hogs. The rest take around 250 megabytes >> total. >> >> This is borne out from some freebsd web servers I run in >> some very remote telemetry locations (but with excellent >> connectivity). They run very well in 512M of ram. >> >>>The downside would be that assuming that one could write one >>>assembler instruction per minute in a 40-hour working week >>>and a 46-week working year, allowing approximately 4 bytes >>>for each instruction, then it would take you about 9,000 man-years >>>to write enough code for a progran to completely fill 4GB of RAM! >> >> That makes 9600 bytes per week, >> >> When I write some high level language code I do make around 200 >> loc per day on average, and that generates 8-10 k of binary >> code ex variables and buffers. This bears out the around 4-5 >> times productivity using higher level languages. So it would >> only take around 2000 man years. :-/ >> >> Or 50 men, 40. >> >> Of course, if I am REALLY productive then I am reducing the net >> loc in the project. >> >> -- mrr > >
Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-13 12:22 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-13 07:29 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 07:43 -0700
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 17:13 +0100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-13 17:18 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-13 18:29 +0100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 23:51 +0100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 15:52 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-13 20:51 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-13 22:19 -0500
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-14 15:19 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-14 11:51 -0500
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 18:00 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 13:09 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 17:58 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-16 09:00 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 10:42 -0500
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? mrr@sambook.reistad.name (Morten Reistad) - 2016-02-14 21:36 +0100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-13 20:54 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 07:47 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 01:01 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 18:04 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 18:20 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:48 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-16 09:32 -0500
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-16 15:58 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 18:04 +0100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 10:03 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:09 +1100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-19 06:34 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-16 15:14 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:49 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 07:49 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 19:20 +1100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 14:47 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-15 14:10 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:40 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 06:56 -0700
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-17 20:56 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:48 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 11:55 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 11:51 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-19 09:47 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 06:54 -0700
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-19 06:36 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 15:13 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-19 19:48 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:39 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:38 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-20 09:47 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:35 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-20 11:12 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:30 -0700
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 09:37 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:46 -0600
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:22 +1100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-20 23:02 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:02 +1100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-20 12:34 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:35 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 09:01 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 10:49 +0100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 16:24 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-14 15:19 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 10:45 -0500
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:50 -0500
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 00:40 +0100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 09:58 -0800
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-16 13:54 -0500
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 06:56 -0700
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:05 +1100
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 00:53 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 16:11 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-16 17:04 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-16 17:44 +0000
Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 08:47 -0800
csiph-web