Re: Replacement for Netscape
Kent West wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 1999, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 May 1999 20:51:55 -0500, Matthew W. Roberts wrote:
> >
> > >Netscape 4.51 for X is just too slow on my slightly dated pentium. Does
> >
> > Huh???
> >
> > Netscape 4.51 is everything else but slow. You probably simply have too
> > little memory. I suggest to install at least 128 megs.
>
> Ya know, we really oughtta quit advertising the idea that Linux runs well
> on 486's with low memory and drive resources....
Why? I'm writing this on a 486DX/33/16Mb (it's normally a 486DX4/120 but
that CPU died a couple of days ago). Netscape 4.5 is running on it right
now. I wouldn't consider running X on it with less memory, and I'm seriously
considering beefing it up to 32Mb, but it seems to me that Linux runs "well"
on it, for my personal subjective definition of "well". I try not to run too
many memory-hungry tasks at once, and I'm keeping well away from 2.2.x
series kernels until they fix whatever dreadful thing was done to memory
management.
BTW, I run a 3-line micro-ISP on a 486DX2/66/32Mb, and I recently installed
Debian 2.1 on my old Amiga 2000/030 just because I could. 5 Bogomips and 5Mb
of RAM. Smokin'.
--
Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/>
Not the Scientology Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/scn/>
Reply to: