200 MB RAM FreeBSD desktop

I put tinycorelinux on an old laptop a family member was looking to get rid of. It was the only OS I could find that still supported the ancient cpu.

It worked ok, but had a bit of a learning curve. I also had to run a couple commands every time I booted it up if I wanted to connect to wifi. I tried to get this to happen automatically, but wasn't having much luck. The password for the network also gets stored in plain text, so there was that. I didn't spend too much time on it, since it seemed like it was ultimately headed for the recycle bin and they just wanted to make sure none of their data was there, but thought if it worked decently well, maybe it could still be kept around and used.

200MB for a desktop sounds massive to some of us :D

Back in the day I used to have a desktop running, with applications, in just 512KB. Getting that memory upgrade to a full 1MB was amazing.

I remember, in 2007, running FreeBSD on a desktop with 512MB RAM and only using 64MB of it running full GNOME 2 and a running instance of Firefox with a couple tabs. A totally standard desktop experience.

Even better, my laptop at the time had only 128MB of RAM and ran Windows XP - a supported, albeit minimal, configuration. XP was bloatier than FreeBSD of course, and ran correspondingly less well, but replacing explorer.exe with a shell called "blackbox" - an openbox-alike - and carefully curating applications (e.g. K-Meleon instead of Firefox) rendered it a perfectly viable multitasking desktop. I have a screenshot from that machine showing an AIM window, an mp3 player, an IDE for an embedded system, and a web browser with the documentation open for that IDE, all running comfortably (on one of its several desktops - yes you could have multiple desktops on XP with alternative shells such as blackbox).

Computers now require approximately 30x the RAM to achieve similar levels of "barely viable" performance - 4GB is considered the absolute minimum for general purpose desktop viability. And qualitatively speaking, what do they do now, that my 2007 fleet did not do? It is difficult to say. One is led to the conclusion that something has gone terribly awry with resource consumption.

I used to run KDE and GNOME on a computer with 256 MB RAM back around the year 2000. Athlon 1000 Sempron and a Duron 800 (one of these machines started out with 128 MB RAM). KDE 1.x, 2.x, GNOME 1.x, 2.x. I don't remember the very minor versions. I tried a myriad of Linux distributions, and FreeBSD as well. I settled for Debian. Back then, we (me, friends, family, etc.) thought these DE's were very bloated. I remember KDE 1.x very vividly because I had to compile it myself (or look online for binaries), and I digged the CDE theme. The first lightweight DE (if you discount fvwm) I used on Linux was XFce, but that was later on. I pretty much started with KDE, tried a bit of GNOME, went back to KDE (I came from Windows 9x). In the end, I learned to appreciate GNOME, and MacOSX or Mac OSX as I used to call it back then (proper name was Mac OS X, I suppose).

My point is what you are used to is your reference point. The underlying OS isn't super relevant. On Linux, every distribution gets on par with each other eventually. On FreeBSD I used OSS and something like winmodem is just crap hardware. Nowadays my homelab and desktop have 64 GB RAM, while my MBP (M1Pro) only has 16 GB RAM which is the same as its successor (MBP 2015 with 16 GB RAM). Do I use all of that? Not really, but the main culprit is browser(s) (which includes apps these days). Curious if you can play Steam games well on FreeBSD. FreeBSD has a couple of neat things (tho ZFS is now better on Linux). I've always preferred PF to IPT.

I'm always wanted to know what XFCE means