Re: Planning: Minimum System Requirements
Brian White said:
>> OK, I'll be more specific -- making decisions that actually MEAN
>> something. The only spec issue that affects how the real work is done is
>> whether '9x is supported.
>
> And NTFS.
Yes, the real crux of the issue is more about whether FAT is supported.
>> Once that's decided, minimum CPU, RAM... that's just subjective fluff.
>
> It's minor, so what.
The problem is not that it's minor, it's that it limits for zero gain.
> It flows primarily from the previous requirement
> and it sets a starting point. It took 10 minutes and means that nobody
> is going to try optimizing for a 386.
Since the base system isn't up and running yet, we are very far from
caring about optimisation.
>> The
>> minimum spec is a version of Windows that the project supports, and a PC
>> that will run it. At the very bottom end it will be dog slow. At what
>> point will it start being useful? A matter of opinion, and it's
>> pointless
>> trying to set a fixed point. Say we settle on the NT line from v4 up --
>> some people will be able to do useful work with a 386 and 16MB.
>
> But that was the point! By deciding our target "market",
This project does not have a target market, because unless you are setting
out to make money you do not need one. It has a technical objective. The
target market is whoever can and wants to use the result.
> we don't have
> waste time even worrying about the older machines.
And would you like to name one way in which the project is harder if i386
is supported? Not a vague "worrying about the older machines", try a
*solid* reason, like the aforementioned already discussed extension and
filename issues.
> It doesn't matter
> if some people do useful stuff on it or not; they won't be doing it
> using this project.
LOL. Write some code and I might believe that. Otherwise I'd say you're
likely to have very little influence in the matter.
[...]
>> Yup, and you won't get any closer by talking about hardware specs.
>
> Nobody is talking about hardware specs except you. We finished that
> discussion a week ago after a couple days
And I'm giving my opinion now, because wasn't checking my email at the time.
--
John Ineson
Reply to: