From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () Subject: Re: Coherent vs. Linux - a comparo Date: 21 Jun 1993 17:19:02 GMT
In article <gahC8z8uz.3vw@netcom.com> gah@netcom.com (Gregg Hungerford) writes:
>pd@doc.ic.ac.uk (Philip Daniels) writes:
[...stuff deleted...]
>
>> Type of video system is very important. I run X at more than acceptable
>>speed on my 486SX-25 / S3 combination.
>
> That's not much processing power to be divided up (at least for
>my needs). I'm running coherent on an equivelant system and the
>4 virtual consoles are as much as my system can cope with. I also
>don't find the 486 sx to be a sound investment. Isn't that just
>a 16 bit bus and no co-processor?
Perhaps before "bashing" a system, you should get your facts straight...
The 486SX has a 32-bit internal AND external bus (you must be thinking of
the 386SX), but you *are* correct, there is no coprocessor...
Can only handle 4 virtual consoles ? hmmm...perhaps you should look at
your OS and not your machine...Coherent is *notorious* for have exceptionally
slow I/O (hmmm wonder if this extends to swap space as well, which was
the subject of previous complaints...)
> In general, you missed that point I was trying to make. I'm sure
>both linux and coherent are fine for low end systems, but if one
>has lots of ram, high speed disk and a fast processor, it's penny-
>wise and pound foolish to try cutting corners on a decent operating
>system.
Perhaps you can suggest such a system? for a total system price of
under $5000 ? Just what is it about a "low-end" O/S that makes
it *so* unacceptable for higher end machines? What do you consider
a "higher-end" O/S ? one that has a "higher-end" price tag?
John