From: jwinstea@jarthur.claremont.edu (Jim Winstead Jr.) Subject: Re: Coherent vs. Linux - a comparo Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:41:33 GMT
In article <gahC8xB2y.Cur@netcom.com> gah@netcom.com (Gregg Hungerford) writes:
> First, virtual memory is a wonderful thing, but you better have a
>really fast disk drive. I have a Sun with a scuzzi that runs at
>8ms. It's just adequate. I had a mips magnum with fast (3ms) drives.
>It hummed. On my pc's, I have ide (15-16 ms). That's way too slow.
>When paging occurs on these, things CRAWL.
I disagree about performance (having used virtual memory on my
system), and you're ignoring one thing: having virtual memory allows
you to do a heck of a lot more with already existing resources.
Most 386 owners are going to have something like 4-8 MB and about 150
megs of hard drive space (very similar to my setup). Having virtual
memory allows you to run large processes without sinking lots of money
into extra memory.
Also, I understand that Coherent lacks a number of other virtual
memory-related things that make its memory usage far less efficient.
I can't imagine a system without demand paging and shared libraries.
> XWindows is a great thing but it requires a lot of system. The mips
>machine I had came originally with 32 meg of ram. It ran so-so until
>I upgraded to 64 megs.
That's a MIPS machine - I run XFree86 1.2 on a 386/25 with only 8 megs
of memory, and it works great. Scrolling speed could be a notch
faster, but that's not a problem with memory, that could be fixed
with a faster processor or an accelarated video card.
>Also, unless you've got a magnifying glass handy, you really need
>a good 19" monitor.
Hardly. Running my 14" monitor at about 800x600 gives me plenty of
room to work, especially with the virtual screen size of 1024x1024 and
the virtual screens afforded by my window manager.
>As for processor power, you need a lot to make xwindows run. I'd think
>a 40mhz 386 would be barely adequate.
As I said above, I disagree - I have no problems with calling my
system (a 386/25) more than adequate.
Please base your opinions on some sort of practical experience - it
sounds like you're making wild-assed guesses based on absolutely no
experience with similar systems.
> As for cost, my time is a real cost to me. The constant upgrades of
>linux are why I abandoned it.
Abandoned Linux or abandoned upgrading? Nobody says you have to run
Linux 0.99pl10. At least with Linux you have the option of upgrading
often for advanced functionality, and you don't have to wait for MWC
to decide it's time to release the next version.
It just depends on what you're looking for - features "on demand" or
the stability of a commercial release. I would argue that with Linux
you can get both.
> As far as installing software, I've done most of the major packages
>(elm,nn,cnews,perl etc) on a number of boxes. It's NEVER easy. I can
>think of very few situations that didn't require some fiddling. There
>seems to be an impression here that a better os is going to mean that
>typing in 'make' is going to compile anything. It just isn't so.
I didn't need to do annoy twiddling when I installed perl - a quite
major package. Compiles and runs out of the box.
It's not always hard.
-- loveritablessencentipedependentalism+ Jim Winstead Jr. (CSci '95) andaterrificklengtherealityearguessy| Harvey Mudd College, WIBSTR mpathybridgenerationiceremonymphysic| jwinstea@jarthur.Claremont.EDU alendareadvertisexpresshothoughthend+ or jwinstea@fenris.Claremont.EDU