Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 12:17:41 12/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 1999 at 00:23:40, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 06, 1999 at 17:47:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On December 05, 1999 at 21:11:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 05, 1999 at 16:42:55, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> > >(snip) > >>>>The problem with Microsoft is that you'll never get a reliable operating system: >>>>you get a system that almost works, but has many bugs. When you want to fix >>>>them, you have to get the next version of the OS, which is fatter, does not run >>>>anymore on your computer (allegedly because your 1 year old computer is already >>>>outdated) and brings a lot more bugs than what it fixes. >>>> >>>>I don't want to be part of this crazyness. But nobody offers an alternative. >>>> Christophe >> >>I think Christophe mentions a good point here. With the release of >>windows2000 m$ clearly is gonna buy linux some time to improve, >>as the beta releases of windows2000, >>I killed directly after i saw that they were eating over 60mb of my >>RAM... ...so basically needing machines with like 256mb at least... >>...they should buy some stocks in that area... > > >I knew that. I have read nothing about Win2000, but my guess was that it would >take more RAM and more disk space. very correct. not that much more diskspace. i don't care actually having tens of gigabytes for cheap prices in the stores now. >Consider that Microsoft earns money each time a PC is sold, because most PCs >come with Windows. They make several (hundreds?) million dollars with this. So >it's their interest to force you to buy a new computer each year. I'm not gonna buy stocks in this area though. >A basic install of W95B takes about 80Mb on my computers. W98 takes about 200Mb. >I guess W2000 will take something like 400 to 600Mb? 590mb here excluding swapfile that is, and including internet installation. Note that linux here eats up nearly a gigabyte. i don't care actually too much about that. giant harddisks are cheap nowadays. >With W95B, 16Mb of memory is the minimum (well I run it on a 5Mb computer, but >it's really slow). With W98, I noticed 32Mb was the minimum. >It sounds logical that 64Mb is the minimum for W2000. >I bet W2000 on a 450MHz computer is as slow as W95B on a 100MHz computer. Now let's first politely ask what type of processor that your 100Mhz computer is and what type of processor the 450 is. Very likely if both intel or amd, that your a bit overexaggerating. win2000 worked just as cool as NT here, some cool new designs of bitmaps and icons especially and the for windows98 users already familiar way of colors getting from one color slowly to another color at the bar of each window (no such luxury under NT 4.0 sp5 yet) >I bet that to do simple word processing tasks on W2000 you need at least a >450MHz computer equipped with 128Mb of RAM. 128mb is a bit little for win2000. >Nice move, Micro$oft! > >I guess their biggest technical problem when they think about a new OS is: "what >could we load in memory at boot this time to take twice the memory size needed >by our former OS?". >That's why we need an alternative OS as soon as possible. But something >everybody can use! Well when talking about kernel sizes, the standard SMP kernel of linux was 60mb here, however after i turned off some networking stuff and some stupid drivers from outdated hardware (like XT drivers), i all threw it out. Only left in things like the CDrom player and the diskdrive access and dos/windows connections and some compatible toys, of course i compiled it SMP capable. After that i could run my program at my 128 mb machine with 115 mb hashtables. This means that (3.5 mb added) that the kernel eated only 10 mb of memory. Of course this was after some swapping of the diskcache but then it ran smoothly. However you want to prevent that. It appeared that with 110mb hashtables it ran without even swapping at startup. Note that diep's hashtables are shared memory which is a bit harder to allocate on any OS than the normal malloc() call. linux even gets completely hung if allocated memory (shared) >= swapfilesize+RAM At NT 4.0 i can only allocate 100mb with some swapping (of course i didn't integrate ie 4.x into my desktop otherwise you get fried everywhere). 80 mb runs smoothly though. Standard linux SMP kernel however only allows 60mb shared memory without swapping. This all on a 128 mb machine. Note that i must warn that it is not smart to take out too much networking out of linuxkernel if you want to connect to the internet and or to other machines. Vincent > Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.