Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   That would be a 486, yes. It worked in a 386, but 486 was recommended.
> 
>> Actually, I'm kind of amused. I realized the files in the boot partition 
>> for my Linux are bigger than you could put on the biggest hard drive 
>> available for the IBM AT.
> 
>   I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say.

Nothing except that I'm amazed at how fast disk sizes grow. It wasn't a 
cut on Linux.  I just don't have any idea how big the "boot partition" 
on a Windows machine would need to be.  (Unless you only count NTLDR et 
al.) I was merely making an observation.

People complain about "software bloat", and it always seemed like a 
silly complaint. I have a five-year-old machine, and I can't even buy a 
disk drive as small as twice as big as what's in there now.

It used to be 32 meg was as huge as it got on a desktop machine. Now 
that won't even be enough RAM to boot a modern desktop OS, let alone a 
enough disk space.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message