Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:07:09 -0500, Warp wrote:

> >   I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro which
> > uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If it's
> > light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of RAM.

> I ran a very lightweight Linux distro on a 386 with a maximum memory 
> capacity of 16 MB.  The machine physically couldn't take more memory.

  The main point is whether you were able to run X with it or not.
To simply use the console you could use a microwave oven. ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw schrieb:
> Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons, died tuesday morning.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/03/04/obit.gygax.ap/index.html
> 
> 
The sunday special from userfriendly says it all

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080309

Marc

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:07:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>>   I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro which
>> uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If it's
>> light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of RAM.
> 
> I ran a very lightweight Linux distro on a 386 with a maximum memory 
> capacity of 16 MB.  The machine physically couldn't take more memory.
> 
> Jim

I switched to LINUX when my pretty *new* 386 wasn't sufficient for the 
new Mrcrosoft OS requirements. As a nice side effect the LateX version 
was capable of running more than 200 pages - unlike the DOS version, 
that stopped at 200. At that time I had been very happy about the 
performance of LINUX, making the most of my hardware.

Marc

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:21:41 +0100, Marc Schimmler wrote:

> I switched to LINUX when my pretty *new* 386 wasn't sufficient for the
> new Mrcrosoft OS requirements. As a nice side effect the LateX version
> was capable of running more than 200 pages - unlike the DOS version,
> that stopped at 200. At that time I had been very happy about the
> performance of LINUX, making the most of my hardware.

Not surprising, really - I was fairly happy with the performance of my 
machine as well, until I tried to run mysql and apache on it 
simultaneously. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:21:48 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:07:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro
>> >   which
>> > uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If
>> > it's light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of
>> > RAM.
> 
>> I ran a very lightweight Linux distro on a 386 with a maximum memory
>> capacity of 16 MB.  The machine physically couldn't take more memory.
> 
>   The main point is whether you were able to run X with it or not.
> To simply use the console you could use a microwave oven. ;)

I was able to accomplish what I wanted without X - just like with DOS, I 
could run WP51, Lotus 1-2-3, and Harvard Graphics without the need for 
Windows. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:20:26 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:12:04 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >> Create a letter using WordPerfect 5.1.  Create a letter using
>> >> Microsoft Word 2003.  Including the time just to start the
>> >> applications, WP51 starts quicker, and you finish quicker.
>> > 
>> > A more appropriate comparison would be WordPerfect 5.1 to Wordpad if
>> > you're just doing bare-bones word processing that needs a little
>> > formatted text.
> 
>> WordPad didn't exist on DOS.
> 
>   Neither did Word 2003. I completely fail to see your point.

Comparing modern software on modern hardware with a modern OS against the 
"modern" equivalents from 20 years ago.

20 years ago, I could run WordPerfect for DOS on a DOS machine that was 
an 8086 or 80286 and got decent performance - instant responses and 
whatnot.

Today I have a machine that's a billion times faster, and the modern 
software *runs slower*.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:07:13 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 9 Mar 2008 00:44:20 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Why doesn't it work?  *Bloat*.
> 
> True but you've got to remember that 15 years ago. The only people who
> used the internet were IT folk and did not need to be coddled and who
> could set up their own programmes. Bloat is for those who like formatted
> text and microwave dinners :)

A lot of the bloat comes from inefficient coding - after all, I can put 
32 GB of memory in a machine nowadays, so why do I need to worry about 
optimisation?

The type of optimization that was taught in CS classes in the early 90's 
doesn't seem to even be a concern any more because "the machines are fast 
enough and have enough memory that it doesn't matter if we're sloppy in 
our coding".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:16:55 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   I believe this to be just a false memory in most cases. Do you have
>> >   any
>> > concrete examples?
> 
>> Boot DOS.  Boot Windows.  Compare the boot times.
> 
>   Yeah. Boot to Windows. Don't start the computer at all. Compare the
>   times.

With DOS the machine was able to be used when it started up.  I spent 
more than enough time working with DOS to know the difference between the 
machine being turned on and usable and it not.  Don't be ridiculous.

>> Create a letter using WordPerfect 5.1.  Create a letter using Microsoft
>> Word 2003.  Including the time just to start the applications, WP51
>> starts quicker, and you finish quicker.
> 
>   So WP51 starts in 5 seconds and Word starts in 6 seconds, you spend
> a half hour writing the letter in both, and when you are finished, you
> have spent 1805 seconds in WP51 and 1806 second in Word. Yeah, maybe you
> are right. It's slower to do it nowadays.

5s vs 6s?  Are you on crack?  WP51 started *instantly*, not in 5s, and 
Word 2003 - unless Windows pre-caches it (thus wasting memory that could 
be used for other tasks) takes significantly longer to start.

>   (Naturally let's forget how long it takes to *print* that letter with
> hardware of each era.)

How about let's not?  IBM Laser printer would crank them out at 19 ppm.  
Compare to the ubiquitous deskjet-style printer that's used today, the 
printers are even slower (I've got an 882c right here that's about 
equivalent if it's printing using only black ink).
 
>> >   Really? I have noticed the exact opposite trend. Just in the
>> >   Windows
>> > side of the world, for example updating software is easier than ever:
>> > In many cases the software updates itself automatically without you
>> > having to do anything about it. Even if you have to start the
>> > updating manually, it's usually pretty automated.
> 
>> And when the automated updates screw the machine up, the user is
>> basically screwed.
> 
>   How exactly is this related to the topic?

I'm not the one who brought up the unrelated topic of automated updates.  
Ask Tim.

>> As I said, there are some tasks that are faster on modern equipment
>> with modern software.  But the majority of people need a word
>> processor, a spreadsheet, and access to the 'net.  Maybe presentation
>> software.
> 
>   And those run much faster today than they did 15 years ago.

Baloney.  WP51 could keep up with my typing.  I can't count the number of 
times when using Word (prior to switching to Linux full-time) that I 
would type and the machine would just sit there, and then a few seconds 
later my text would appear.

>> >   Browsing the internet with a web browser? Fast and efficient
>> >   nowadays,
>> > sluggish 15 years ago.
> 
>> With a decent connection to the 'net, surfing the web 15 years ago was
>> generally faster, if only because the amount of crap that people put on
>> web pages was reduced.
> 
>   That's irrelevant with regard to whether *software* is faster today
>   than
> back then or not.

It takes me more time to do equivalent tasks now to what I did 15 years 
ago.  That's the point.

>   Basically what you are saying there is equivalent to "it takes 1
>   second
> for a 386 to open a 320x240 image, and 5 seconds for an AMD64 to open a
> 32000x24000 image, hence the 386 is faster".

What I'm saying is "if I want to do a task today that's not CPU-
intensive, the applications are generally slower".  I note that you 
*still* aren't acknowledging that I said that there are *some* tasks 
(such as image editing) that this is NOT true for, and continue to use 
that as a counterexample.

>>  15 years ago, the big thing being talked about
>> was whether or not to use blink tags for $DEITY's sake.  Now it's all
>> about flash animations and dynamically updating web applications which
>> should *really* be implemented not using web technologies, but rather
>> using desktop development technologies.
> 
>   Still irrelevant with regard to whether software is nowadays faster
> or not.

Again, it takes longer to do the same tasks in many cases.  15 years ago, 
I could turn my machine on and start working.  Today, using Windows XP, I 
could go and buy a snack from the vending machine before the machine has 
finished starting up after needing applying updates.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:35:18 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:

> Phone - " Sorry, I'm not interested in anyting you have to sell.
> Goodbye"

Add "Stop calling me, because you will never win business from me by 
being annoying/persistent".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

47d44731$1@news.povray.org...

> It takes me more time to do equivalent tasks now to what I did 15 years
> ago.  That's the point.

But what are you doing exactly? Unless your job consists exclusively in 
opening and closing applications and doing absolutely nothing in between, 
that goes *** completely *** against my (20-year) experience of using 
engineering and office software. Startup times are sometimes longer, duh. 
What about the rest, like actually using the software for the kind of tasks 
that are expected in 2008? And here I'm talking about office software: 
spreadsheets, presentation software, databases and word processing. That's 
really looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses, sorry.

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters

Post a reply to this message