From: jim@n5ial.mythical.com (Jim Graham) Subject: Re: Coherent vs. Linux - a comparo Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 02:16:14 GMT
This should be interesting...I don't get comp.os.coherent from either news
feed. I hope this doesn't choke. :-)
Btw, I've been running Linux for around 6 months now on a 20 MHz 386 w/
4 Meg of RAM, and am very, very happy with it. I do need more hard disk,
as well as more RAM---I want to be able to load/run X11, move TeX over to
Linux instead of the dog (umm, err, dos) partition, and so on.
In article <C8y4LA.54A@news.claremont.edu> jwinstea@jarthur.claremont.edu
(Jim Winstead Jr.) writes:
>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.
[....]
>>When paging occurs on these, things CRAWL.
Not really. Things aren't as fast as they would be if you had enough real
memory, but they don't usually get too bogged down. In fact, I normally
don't see things get bogged down at all.
In fact, I just looked, and there are 660 k of swap space allocated right
now, and you'd never know it. This is usually the case, btw, and unless I
look at the output of ``free'' I'd (almost) never know it.
>I can't imagine a system without demand paging and shared libraries.
Nor could I. That's just part of UNIX, period. When I was originally
comparing coherent to Linux, and found out from MWC that they didn't have
demand paging, and that they planned to have it Real Soon Now (and it
wouldn't be a free upgrade/bug-fix, either...they were going to charge
quite a bit for it, if I recall), well, MWC lost out. Of course, there
were other issues, but this one alone was enough for me (especially
considering my limited RAM).
>> 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.
The first thing that comes to mind after reading this is: how many users
were on that mips machine at the time? If it needs 32 Megs of RAM to run
X (I'm assuming X would only be running on the console), then this is really
absurd. Granted, you do want to have a lot of swap space allocated, but
this all happens silently in the background. At my previous job, I had a
DEC VAXstation 3100 running ultrix 4.1, and MIT X11R5. It had 16 Meg of
memory, about 2 Meg of which went to the monitor before the OS was even
loaded. It ran just fine, and I usually had *LOTS* of xterms, xdvi,
various other non-text (i.e., non-xterm) apps, etc., all running at once,
as well as having rather high-resolution images loaded on the root window.
I usually had to deliberately try to load the system down before it got
slow.
>>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.
I'm pretty sure that the above ``barely adequate'' is being compared to
the equivalent of having a cray all to yourself. :-) Ok, not quite that
extreme...but you get the idea. When I get the hard disk to support it,
and when I upgrade to the recommended minimum of 8 Meg (for X), I plan to
add X11 here, on my 20 MHz 386. Will it be tearing holes in the atmosphere
from moving too fast? Probably not. Will it be good enough for me, as a
personal machine? Probably so.
It's all a matter of what you're willing to pay for. If I had the money
for a new high-speed 486, I could probably pay for a Sparc (or at least a
clone). If I could afford a Sparc/clone, I'd have a Linux machine and a
Sparc/clone sitting next to each other.
>> 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.
I'm running 0.99 PL 6 right now. When I upgrade, it will be because some
feature I want requires the new kernel. I've got this one nicely
customized, and I'm happy with the way it performs for me. I'm not going
to upgrade just for the sake of having the latest/greatest, unless there's
a feature, bug-fix, etc., that I want/need.
>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.
I'd have to agree with this 100 percent. As long as you don't consider
upgrades mandatory, it's not an issue. And if you do keep seeing things
you want added with new releases of the kernel, frankly, I personally would
be pleased that things were going my way! And if the new features weren't
worth upgrading quite yet, then what's the problem? You can wait as long as
you want to...but they're there if you need them.
Later.
--jim