From: gah@netcom.com (Gregg Hungerford) Subject: Re: Coherent vs. Linux - a comparo Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 14:29:28 GMT
jwinstea@jarthur.claremont.edu (Jim Winstead Jr.) writes:
>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.
I am a big fan of virtual memory. My point is that I've used it
with a variety of drives and found anything slower than 8ms isn't
tolerable for my needs.
>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.
The problem is that low end systems like that have a tendency to
thrash. When that happens, you'll find yourself watching the disk
constantly paging back and forth, tying up the whole system, while
nothing happens.
>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.
Again, I'm a fan of virtual memory. I started out in the 70's when
job swapping was all there was. My point is that I think people have
some false expectations. On a drive with 3 ms access, virtual memory
is elegant. On a drive with 15 ms, it's clunky at best. I think a lot
of people now (myself included) are using ide drives that fall into
that category.
>> 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.
Certainly the mips box had more overhead, but I think a system like
yours would come to a grinding halt trying to run the volume and
intensity of programs that I was running (including a FULL net news
feed via uucp).
>>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.
That's a matter of personal taste. I have all sizes of monitors on my
systems and prefer the less imposing 14" screen. The problem with
these smaller screens is a matter of clutter. The virtual screen setup
that comes with coherent is easier for me than searching for and resizing
windows all the time...
>>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.
>--
No it isn't. But it's often the case.
Gregg
--Gregg Hungerford - Boulder Creek, Ca. gah@netcom.com 72115.540@compuserve.com