From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () Subject: Re: Coherent vs. Linux - a comparo Date: 21 Jun 1993 13:21:22 GMT
In article <gahC8xB2y.Cur@netcom.com> gah@netcom.com (Gregg Hungerford) writes:
> I'm having problems with some of the arguments on both sides...
> 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.
Soo...get a faster disk. If you *didn't* have paging (i.e. Coherent)
then things wouldn't just crawl, they'd DIE... Virtual memory isn't
just nice, its a NECESSITY!
> 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. Then it was great.
RISC machines are know for requiring *alot* more memory than CISC
machines. The size of RISC executables tend to be in the range of
2 to 3 times greater than CISC executables for the *same* application.
> Running coherent OR linux
>in a system with that kind of resource makes no sense at all. These
>are LOW END operating systems. Also, unless you've got a magnifying
>glass handy, you really need a good 19" monitor. As for processor
>power, you need a lot to make xwindows run. I'd think a 40mhz 386
>would be barely adequate.
Did you really *try* Linux running X ? If so, what was your configuration?
I have 2 machines that I use, a 386/33 and a 486/33. Both have 8MB,
both have ATI Graphics Ultra cards. The 386 has a 14" monitor, and the
486 has a 15" monitor. Characters & graphics are perfectly legible
(without a magnifying glass). I drive both of them at 1024x768 resolution
in 8514 mode. Response is *very* snappy, comparable to higher end
system (IBM RS/6000 550). I notice a slowdown in performance when
I'm trying to do a major compile (such as compiling the linux kernel)
*and* I'm running X with several windows open *and* editing a file
using GNU Emacs 19.13.
A 19inch monitor is nice, but definitely not *needed*.
> As far as I'm concerned, simplicity IS beauty and coherent fits that
>bill. Linux is trying to be too much at once and seems in a constant
>state of flux. If a person had a lot of free time, linux could be
>fascinating, but I needed something to 'glue' my spare part system
>together and coherent surpassed my expectations...
Linux can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. YOU have the
choice of what features you want. YOU can even recompile the kernel to
get rid of KERNEL features you don't want...
It took approximately 3 hours to set up my first PC with Linux (including
backing up all the DOS stuff). Since then, I have done very little
messing with it. It has been in use constantly as a production machine
running in a networked TCP/IP environment with NFS and X since April
with only a few problems (mostly caused by the power company - but then
again *all* our computers had problems then :-). Since I develop software
in a UNIX environment, its *wonderful* to have a FULL-BLOWN UNIX system
on my desk running X *and* having several Gigs of files and data transparently
accessible via NFS...best of all was the price...:-)
My "Spare parts" system at home also has linux running on it, (386/33 w/ 4MB)
but not running X. 8 Virtual Consoles give me *almost* the same flexibility
as X. I run it with a 28MB swap space on a *slow* (28ms MFM) drive. The performance
is acceptable, but the *key* is: Without the swap space, I wouldn't be able
to do 1/4 of what I am able to do...compile & run large programs...
Try running a program that requires 20MB of data, and has 2MB of code on
the *same* machine running Coherent.
John