Re: Memory Rusting Effect [re: Linux hostile to poverty]
Andrej Presern (andrejp@luz.fe.uni-lj.si)
Sun, 19 Jul 1998 14:54:42 +0200
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> In article <XFMail.980718123733.dbr@oto.dyn.ml.org>,
> David B. Rees <dbr@oto.dyn.ml.org> wrote:
> >
> >This brings up another question... People have noted that 2.1.109 is much
> >better on 8MB machines, but what about 4MB machines? Has anyone tried it?
> >Maybe I'll give it a shot today and post my results...
>
> I'm actually officially going to suggest that if you have less than 16MB
> RAM on your system, you're probably better off running 2.0.x than 2.2.
>
> Linux 1.0 used to run in 2MB (not well, but it ran), 1.2 already pretty
> much required 4MB, 2.2 will pretty much require 8MB and 16MB preferred.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I'll make sure it works on an 8MB machine, but I
> won't consider it a showstopper if it is noticeably slower than 2.0.x on
> such a machine.
Windows have been there, done that. And people decided they didn't like
it and went to Linux. History repeats?
Andrej
--
Andrej Presern, andrejp@luz.fe.uni-lj.si
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html