Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #71714 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-20 02:12 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-08-21 18:15 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 107 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-20 02:12 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-20 12:38 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-08-20 13:30 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-20 12:33 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:52 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-20 14:10 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-08-20 16:16 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-08-26 19:23 +1000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-27 19:49 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-27 20:37 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-28 08:56 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 03:57 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-28 10:12 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 04:21 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-28 12:05 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 06:28 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-08-28 11:13 +0300
Re: Old Hardware Redux Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-28 12:07 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-08-28 18:58 +1000
Re: Old Hardware Redux "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-20 21:02 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 09:04 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-30 15:09 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 17:51 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-30 22:43 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-21 07:54 +1000
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-21 10:11 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-08-21 11:51 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-21 11:31 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-21 11:45 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-21 13:29 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-21 12:49 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2025-08-21 13:44 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-21 14:28 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-21 21:30 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Old Hardware Redux "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-21 22:21 +0200
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-22 11:03 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-22 09:50 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-22 22:31 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-22 09:40 +1000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-22 02:55 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-21 11:37 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-21 18:05 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-22 09:57 +1000
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-22 00:36 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-22 09:28 +1000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-22 09:46 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-22 19:45 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-23 00:01 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-23 04:53 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-23 10:50 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-23 10:22 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-24 02:25 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-24 19:19 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-23 20:21 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-24 10:55 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-24 20:02 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-25 12:30 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-25 18:13 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 10:41 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-24 22:14 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-24 01:09 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-24 10:58 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-24 20:12 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-24 14:33 -0700
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-25 01:47 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-24 21:12 -0700
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-25 04:34 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-24 21:49 -0700
Re: Old Hardware Redux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 05:33 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-25 01:34 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-25 18:31 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-26 03:57 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-26 19:58 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-25 12:44 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-25 12:40 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-25 12:34 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-25 18:24 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-26 03:47 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-26 20:01 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-27 00:09 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-23 10:43 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-24 00:48 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-23 14:09 +1000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-23 06:59 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-23 13:02 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-24 09:13 +1000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-23 23:37 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-24 03:18 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-23 10:48 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-23 10:22 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-23 18:02 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-23 23:44 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-24 01:04 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-24 20:20 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-25 12:24 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-25 18:10 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-26 03:42 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-26 19:51 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-20 17:21 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-21 06:51 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-21 03:15 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-21 10:14 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-22 01:05 +0000
Re: Old Hardware Redux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-22 03:00 -0400
Re: Old Hardware Redux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-21 10:45 +0100
Re: Old Hardware Redux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-21 18:15 +0000
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 09:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108ubat$2fqqv$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71758 |
On 2025-08-20, Carlos E.R. wrote: > My previous desktop computer was killed for: [...] > * Swaping on rotating rust started sucking after some kernel/libc > update, because of fragmentation causing the disk heads to do a lot of > seeking. The cure was switching to SSD. Do you recall more about what this might have been? Perhaps it was some change in the linux default I/O scheduler? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 15:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uo9bolxoor.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #72728 |
On 2025-08-30 10:04, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2025-08-20, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> My previous desktop computer was killed for: > [...] >> * Swaping on rotating rust started sucking after some kernel/libc >> update, because of fragmentation causing the disk heads to do a lot of >> seeking. The cure was switching to SSD. > > Do you recall more about what this might have been? > > Perhaps it was some change in the linux default I/O scheduler? Sorry, I could not investigate the root cause in the kernel, not a developer. It was years ago, another computer. I do remember that, probably after upgrading the distribution (openSUSE Leap (means a kernel version upgrade)) suddenly swap became slow. I could hear the noise from the busy head going back and forth. I know I asked about this in the openSUSE mail list, but I have not been able to locate the post. I can search further. [...] On 2017 I installed the SSD [...] No, I can't find the posts. Only that before November 2017 I installed the ssd, so the problem was earlier than that. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 17:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwvseh87nyh.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #72728 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 2025-08-20, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> My previous desktop computer was killed for: > [...] >> * Swaping on rotating rust started sucking after some kernel/libc >> update, because of fragmentation causing the disk heads to do a lot of >> seeking. The cure was switching to SSD. > > Do you recall more about what this might have been? > > Perhaps it was some change in the linux default I/O scheduler? If the computer is swapping more than trivial amounts there’s no way performance is going to be remotely acceptable anyway. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 22:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sb4colxpr.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #72761 |
On 2025-08-30 18:51, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes: >> On 2025-08-20, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> My previous desktop computer was killed for: >> [...] >>> * Swaping on rotating rust started sucking after some kernel/libc >>> update, because of fragmentation causing the disk heads to do a lot of >>> seeking. The cure was switching to SSD. >> >> Do you recall more about what this might have been? >> >> Perhaps it was some change in the linux default I/O scheduler? > > If the computer is swapping more than trivial amounts there’s no way > performance is going to be remotely acceptable anyway. It was certainly acceptable till the kernel changed something, and swap started sending the disk head everywhere. It was very obvious: same load, one day, and the day after the upgrade, very slow. I no longer remember what upgrade it was, and can't locate my mails on it. 2017. It became acceptable again when I replaced the system hard disk with an SSD and the swap partition went there. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 07:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <68a64428@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71756 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > 10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old... For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 10:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1086nso$rgpt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71793 |
On 20/08/2025 22:54, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> 10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old... > > For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me. > Indeed. But I need more than just that, -- A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 11:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1086q67$2rq5s$5@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #71793 |
On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > 10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old... > > For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me. How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network protocols?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 11:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1086shp$sftd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71834 |
On 2025-08-21, Marco Moock wrote: > On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> > 10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old... >> >> For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me. > > How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network > protocols? You... install it? I guess not all OSes require bleeding edge hardware to run the setup? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 11:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1086tca$rgpt$21@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71839 |
On 21/08/2025 11:31, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2025-08-21, Marco Moock wrote: > >> On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> 10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old... >>> >>> For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me. >> >> How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network >> protocols? > > You... install it? I guess not all OSes require bleeding edge hardware > to run the setup? > A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what? Early Pentium? Moderately OK and better than a 486 . 32 bit *only* of course. Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM Probably fine if you are not running a GUI and possibly good enough if you are. -- The higher up the mountainside The greener grows the grass. The higher up the monkey climbs The more he shows his arse. Traditional
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 13:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6icjnlxs6v.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #71843 |
On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 21/08/2025 11:31, Nuno Silva wrote: >> On 2025-08-21, Marco Moock wrote: >> >>> On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> >>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> 10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old... >>>> >>>> For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me. >>> >>> How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network >>> protocols? >> >> You... install it? I guess not all OSes require bleeding edge hardware >> to run the setup? >> > A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what? Early Pentium? > > Moderately OK and better than a 486 . > 32 bit *only* of course. > > Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM Heh, maybe 16 megs. > Probably fine if you are not running a GUI and possibly good enough if > you are. Windows 3.11, Win 95, as long as it did not crash. Linux was considered an experiment. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 12:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1087144$rgpt$27@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71849 |
On 21/08/2025 12:29, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 21/08/2025 11:31, Nuno Silva wrote: >>> On 2025-08-21, Marco Moock wrote: >>> >>>> On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> 10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old... >>>>> >>>>> For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me. >>>> >>>> How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network >>>> protocols? >>> >>> You... install it? I guess not all OSes require bleeding edge hardware >>> to run the setup? >>> >> A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what? Early Pentium? >> >> Moderately OK and better than a 486 . >> 32 bit *only* of course. >> >> Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM > > Heh, maybe 16 megs. > No GUI on that then... Will the 32 bit kernel run in that? My smallest 32 bit PI footprint is 32MByte Oh. You are pessimistic. Very few boards supported less than 64Mbyte > >> Probably fine if you are not running a GUI and possibly good enough if >> you are. > > Windows 3.11, Win 95, as long as it did not crash. Linux was considered > an experiment. > Yes. I remember staff running Linux back in the 90s. Stable at the command line and server level, but no X windows -- “It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” Thomas Sowell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 13:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eugjnl-f1n.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71851 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 21/08/2025 12:29, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: [...] >>> A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what? Early Pentium? >>> >>> Moderately OK and better than a 486 . >>> 32 bit *only* of course. >>> >>> Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM >> >> Heh, maybe 16 megs. >> > No GUI on that then... Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could. My first PC (1994) was a Dell 486 with 16 MB. I installed UnixWare 1 on it (later updated to 2). X11 worked fine with either 1024x768 monochrome or 800x600 256 colours. Window manager was ctwm (a modified twm with support for workspaces). -- Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 14:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10876tt$upak$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71854 |
On 21/08/2025 13:44, Geoff Clare wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 21/08/2025 12:29, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > [...] >>>> A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what? Early Pentium? >>>> >>>> Moderately OK and better than a 486 . >>>> 32 bit *only* of course. >>>> >>>> Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM >>> >>> Heh, maybe 16 megs. >>> >> No GUI on that then... > > Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could. > Oh yes. I remember bringing up X windows on a 386 with 4MB. Interactive Unix IIRC. Not really practical > My first PC (1994) was a Dell 486 with 16 MB. I installed UnixWare 1 > on it (later updated to 2). X11 worked fine with either 1024x768 > monochrome or 800x600 256 colours. Window manager was ctwm (a > modified twm with support for workspaces). > My first PC was an NEC V20 clone with a 20MB hard drive running IIRC Dos 2.2 -- "Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) " Alan Sokal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bo8knlxrjg.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #71854 |
On 2025-08-21 14:44, Geoff Clare wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 21/08/2025 12:29, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > [...] >>>> A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what? Early Pentium? >>>> >>>> Moderately OK and better than a 486 . >>>> 32 bit *only* of course. >>>> >>>> Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM >>> >>> Heh, maybe 16 megs. >>> >> No GUI on that then... > > Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could. Windows 3 was a GUI, and it certainly worked in that. > My first PC (1994) was a Dell 486 with 16 MB. I installed UnixWare 1 > on it (later updated to 2). X11 worked fine with either 1024x768 > monochrome or 800x600 256 colours. Window manager was ctwm (a > modified twm with support for workspaces). > -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250821130518.00000470@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #71864 |
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:30:51 +0200 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>> Heh, maybe 16 megs. > >>> > >> No GUI on that then... > > > > Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could. > > Windows 3 was a GUI, and it certainly worked in that. There seems to be a peculiar notion that GUIs *have* to be insanely bloated, glitzy, over-featured monstrosities that chew up a couple gigs all by themselves. Windows 3.x or Mac System 7 would run perfectly well in 4 MB, and with 8 MB had room to spare. Heck, even older vintages of X11 (nobody's idea of a lightweight GUI) will run usably in a 16-32 MB. But hey! It's certainly a convenient line of reasoning for modern GUI developers who *do* chew up more memory just to run a display server/ window manager than you'd find in a whole entire PC twenty years ago!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-21 22:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <enbknlx01r.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #71869 |
On 2025-08-21 22:05, John Ames wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:30:51 +0200 > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> Heh, maybe 16 megs. >>>>> >>>> No GUI on that then... >>> >>> Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could. >> >> Windows 3 was a GUI, and it certainly worked in that. > > There seems to be a peculiar notion that GUIs *have* to be insanely > bloated, glitzy, over-featured monstrosities that chew up a couple gigs > all by themselves. Windows 3.x or Mac System 7 would run perfectly well > in 4 MB, and with 8 MB had room to spare. Heck, even older vintages of > X11 (nobody's idea of a lightweight GUI) will run usably in a 16-32 MB. > > But hey! It's certainly a convenient line of reasoning for modern GUI > developers who *do* chew up more memory just to run a display server/ > window manager than you'd find in a whole entire PC twenty years ago! GEM. It worked on my first PC (Amstrad PC) with 512 MiB. Ok, it was useful for nothing, but it did run :-D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desktop_environment) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-22 11:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1089f9s$1fvl9$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71869 |
On 21/08/2025 21:05, John Ames wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:30:51 +0200 > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> Heh, maybe 16 megs. >>>>> >>>> No GUI on that then... >>> >>> Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could. >> >> Windows 3 was a GUI, and it certainly worked in that. > > There seems to be a peculiar notion that GUIs *have* to be insanely > bloated, glitzy, over-featured monstrosities that chew up a couple gigs > all by themselves. Windows 3.x or Mac System 7 would run perfectly well > in 4 MB, and with 8 MB had room to spare. Heck, even older vintages of > X11 (nobody's idea of a lightweight GUI) will run usably in a 16-32 MB. > > But hey! It's certainly a convenient line of reasoning for modern GUI > developers who *do* chew up more memory just to run a display server/ > window manager than you'd find in a whole entire PC twenty years ago! > I meant specifically a unix based X window system which has *always* been a bloated monstrosity IME many times the size of a Windows installation with less fuinctionality up to around 2003 or thereabouts -- “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” – H. L. Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-22 09:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8sycnUnKqJQB6DX1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #71903 |
On 8/22/25 6:03 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 21/08/2025 21:05, John Ames wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:30:51 +0200 >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>>> Heh, maybe 16 megs. >>>>> No GUI on that then... >>>> >>>> Maybe not with Linux, but a UNIX system of suitable vintage could. >>> >>> Windows 3 was a GUI, and it certainly worked in that. >> >> There seems to be a peculiar notion that GUIs *have* to be insanely >> bloated, glitzy, over-featured monstrosities that chew up a couple gigs >> all by themselves. Windows 3.x or Mac System 7 would run perfectly well >> in 4 MB, and with 8 MB had room to spare. Heck, even older vintages of >> X11 (nobody's idea of a lightweight GUI) will run usably in a 16-32 MB. >> >> But hey! It's certainly a convenient line of reasoning for modern GUI >> developers who *do* chew up more memory just to run a display server/ >> window manager than you'd find in a whole entire PC twenty years ago! >> > I meant specifically a unix based X window system which has *always* > been a bloated monstrosity IME > > many times the size of a Windows installation with less fuinctionality > up to around 2003 or thereabouts Hey, it's FREE - so don't complain TOO loudly :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-22 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <108ar37$1qo9o$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71903 |
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 11:03:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > I meant specifically a unix based X window system which has *always* > been a bloated monstrosity IME > > many times the size of a Windows installation with less fuinctionality > up to around 2003 or thereabouts And then the tables turned, didn’t they? X11 did seem like an inefficient, resource-hungry monstrosity back in the 1990s, in comparison to OSes from Microsoft and Apple which integrated the GUI right into the OS kernel. But now the situation has completely changed. It is Linux that is now considered trim and efficient with its modular, replaceable X11 or Wayland layers on top, and it is Microsoft and Apple that seem bloated and inefficient. And inflexible, too, while Linux can offer a much wider range of GUI choices, or even no GUI at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-22 09:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <68a7ae7c@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71849 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 2025-08-21 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 21/08/2025 11:31, Nuno Silva wrote: >>> On 2025-08-21, Marco Moock wrote: >>> >>>> On 21.08.2025 07:54 Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> 10 year old technology is fine, Just not 20 year old... >>>>> >>>>> For posting to Usenet, this 30 year old PC is doing fine for me. >>>> >>>> How do you install a current OS on it that supports current network >>>> protocols? >>> >>> You... install it? I guess not all OSes require bleeding edge hardware >>> to run the setup? >>> >> A bleeding edge 1995 PC would be what? Early Pentium? >> >> Moderately OK and better than a 486 . >> 32 bit *only* of course. >> >> Unlikely to be able to deal with more than 4GB RAM > > Heh, maybe 16 megs. 80MB actually, maxed out. Other Pentium 1 motherboards could take much more, but only 24MB used now with a few windows open in X... >> Probably fine if you are not running a GUI and possibly good enough if >> you are. > > Windows 3.11, Win 95, as long as it did not crash. Linux was considered > an experiment. Win98 is installed too and runs well enough. Modern Linux in 80MB RAM is probably an experiment from the Linux kernel dev's POV today, but it was certainly meant to work properly in the past. BasicLinux (based on Slackware 4) runs X on a PC with 16MB RAM: http://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/ Probably not possible to run X in 16MB RAM with current Linux though. Even with a fully stripped-down custom kernel build, modern Linux takes up way more RAM than it did back then. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web