[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: x windows on meager hardware (was x windows)



Hi 

My prized student system administrator, Glenn Bily (now graduated, and
making more money than I am)  set up a network of Northgate 20 Mhz 386s,
with 4 MB RAM, no L2 cache, 40 to 80 MB disk TOTAL running Linux, that
are little more than X terminals, to a server at the end of the lab. BTW
they run 1 MB SVGA cards without accelleration, and are bearable running
Netscape.

I'm going to miss him.  Glenn, and what he does with Linux is
astonishing. What can be done with Linux is astonishing.

--David
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
           LINUX: the FREE 32 bit OS for [345]86 PC's available NOW!
David B Teague | User interface copyrights & software patents make 
teague@wcu.edu | programing a dangerous business. Ask me or lpf@lpf.org

spy counter-intelligence wild porno sex gold bullion Soviet Bosnia clipper
Mossad data encryption munitions Serbian hydrazine ammonium nitrate fuel oil  


On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, John T. Larkin wrote:

> > > well i got 1.2.2 installed and i was wondering about x 
> > > windows, could anyone tell me how much disk space i will 
> > > need to run this. i have an old 386 with 4m ran and 20mb 
> > > of swap space.
> 
> > am quite impressed with its abilities.  I don't think I'd try xwin with
> > less than say 300, 400 is better and of course, (if your budget 
> > allows)700 or more would probably do a single user machine for some time.
> 
> I disagree.  At home I've an old 386-40 which ran X, netscape, PPP, xv
> and almost nothing else in 40 megs of drive space.  It does, however,
> have 8 megs of ram and an S3 accelerated card, which makes X almost 
> bearable.  While Linux will run X with only 4 megs of ram, you probably
> won't be able to do much except for wait for it to swap.  I'd really
> recomend at least 8 megs of ram.
> 
> -- 
> 				- John Larkin	
> 				- jlarkin@hmc.edu
> 				- http://aij.st.hmc.edu/~jlarkin
> 




Reply to: