Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.coherent:8995 comp.os.linux:35329 comp.os.minix:21882 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1824 comp.os.misc:2153 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!garrett From: garrett@garnet.berkeley.edu (Garrett D'Amore) Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux,comp.os.minix,comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.misc Subject: Re: Unix CAN be used on a minimal system! (Re: Unix OS for 286) Date: 21 Apr 1993 18:33:12 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 43 Distribution: world Message-ID: <1r4418$and@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <1qtep4INNmn7@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> <930419394@tiny.com> <1r34mlINNbv6@uwm.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu In article <1r34mlINNbv6@uwm.edu> Rick Miller - Linux Device Registrar <rick@ee.uwm.edu> writes: >sjsobol@tiny.com (Steven J Sobol) writes: >> >>I use Coherent 4.0, the 32-bit 386-specific version, on a 16-mhz 386-SX. >>It has 2 MB of RAM, and the 45 MB hard drive is divided evenly down the middle. >>22.5 MB for DOS/Windows3.1 (which I can run just fine, thank you), and 22.5 >>for Coherent. Obviously, I'm not running gcc or X11R5 on my computer, but >>I can use Coherent very well... > >It wasn't obvious to ME that you couldn't be running gcc. How can you say >"very well" if you can't run gcc?!? It worked fine under Linux on an even >*smaller* machine. Coherent comes with its own cc and as. You don't "need" gcc to run stuff at all. I found that as far as cc's go, it wasn't half bad (compared to say Sun's dog...) >I had Linux on my 386SX/16 w/ 2MB RAM on a mere 20MB partition for a while >(until I scrapped MS-DOS!), and it could re-compile its own kernel while I >ran kermit (a big memory-hog, as far as comm-programs go) to post articles >to comp.os.linux! > >...and you don't fool me! You can *NOT* run DOS/Windows3.1 "just fine" on >a 16 MHz processor with only 2MB of RAM, unless you're not DOING anything. Not true. As long as you are willing to run only one task at a time, and you limit yourself to simple word processing and spreadsheeting, it does just fine. (This is what most people use Windows for.) I operate a lab with about 25 486-33s, 20 386sx-20s, a couple of 486DX2-66s, and a bunch of Macs. I've found that the 386sx's are quite sufficient for Windows. Of course, we have 4 Mb on these machines, but I also am usually running several WinQVT (Telnet clone) sessions as well as a Word 2.0 session. I have two machines on my desk -- a 386sx-20 and a 486dx-33. I run DOS/Win on the sx, and Linux on the 486. Both work well. :) ==================================================================== Garrett D'Amore | garrett@haas.berkeley.edu Software Co-Ordinator | 68 Barrows Hall, UC Berkeley Haas Computing Services | Ph: 510-643-5923 Fax: 642-4769 ====================================================================