lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: "obsolete" hardware

    On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, yuri mironoff wrote:

    >
    >
    > On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Trevor Jenkins wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > I'm looking forward to the day when my venerable old 386 can be
    > > retired from running MS-DOS/Windows 3.1 to the freedom of running
    > > Linux. If by the time I do that I'm expected to bleed because
    > > Linux will then only working on cutting edge stuff then I'll not
    > > remain a Linux supporter for long.
    > >
    > > There's a difference between wanting and having. The real beauty of
    > > Linux, for me and I suspect others, is that we can run multi-user
    > > services/servers on hardware that cannot run Windows 3.1 let alone
    > > run Windows 95.
    >
    > Of course there is another way of looking at this. There are lots
    > of current and upcoming applications that do require lots of horsepower.
    > By the same token there are fewer and fewer (if any) applications being
    > written that target a 486 (let alone a 386) as a minimum requirement. Try
    > running anything X/Motif based and you'll see what I mean. If Linux
    > developers concentrate their attention on trying to be compatible with
    > obsolete hardware as opposed to taking advantage of cutting edge features
    > other operating systems will overtake Linux by running slower on faster
    > hardware - not exactly a pretty picture.

    I ran X/Motif on my dx2-66 and dx4-100, both ran very admirably.

    >
    > Bottom line is I'd rather say "Linux runs faster on a quad P7" than
    > "Linux still runs on my 2mb 386" a year from now. A well executed design
    > means nothing unless it performs. Nothing PERFORMS on a 386. Lets not
    > loose sight of our goals here for the sake of keeping backward
    > compatibility.

    But if you run stuff that doesn't need a high-power PERFORMING processor,
    then whats the point. use what you need, not what you don't need.

    >
    > Take as a warning the longevity of the PC bus architecture. Would you
    > care to guess why we're still stuck with it? Backward compatibility. Its a
    > dirty word.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Y.
    >
    > P.S. I skipped a more than a couple of lunches to upgrade to my
    > first Pentium. Not that many really - but it was definitely worth it. ;)
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.026 / U:62.344 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site