From: Richard Kirkcaldy (Richard.kirkcaldy@IC24.net)
Date: Sun Oct 31 1999 - 21:02:10 CET
>
> But, how about normal usage once the system and any program you
> run are already on memory? Is it "usable" or is it a pain to work with
such
> small resources?
I get along all right, but I haven't tried Netscape. Once software has
loaded it
is a fairly slow, but I can make do with it. Some software is fast once it
has loaded, some is slow loading and running.
>
> Time ago I was using Debian GNU/Linux on a 486DX2-66 but with
much
> more memory (40MB, if memory serves) and it was not bad... but I'm afraid
> current versions of Linux would do worse because of hard requirements of
> new kernels. But I suspect and hope that muLinux could do the job
beautifully.
I would like more memory, but I would rather save up for a new computer and
be able to run something a bit better still. That way I will be able to
keep this one and play around with networking as well. I am going to have
to get windows9x on it as well to be compatible with the rest of the world.
>
> I'm on a LAN, so that my system is connected through a 10BaseT
> NIC. Hopefully, this will speed up things a bit compared with your setup.
> Moreover, the system will be up most of the time, so that the user won't
> need to wait for loading Linux and X... simply sit and log in.
>
Well a LAN isn't going to be any faster than localhost is it? Especially if
it was a busy network.
I have found that win3.11 is faster than mulinux, so I would prefer to use
that if possible. But I don't know that win3.11 is as good at networking,
and it certainly isn't as good at security.
-- Richard Kirkcaldy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.auc.dk For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.auc.dk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:16 CET