Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

200 MB RAM FreeBSD desktop

vermaden.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 223 posts

Re: 200 MB RAM FreeBSD desktop

#41

Post by adrian_b »

daitangio wrote: post #38
badc0ffee wrote: post #8

I remember booting up Debian into an X11 session on a laptop with only 8 MB of RAM. (This would have been circa 2000, and I think I had to try a few different distros before finding one that worked. Also I don't think I did anything with it beyond Xterm and Xeyes.)

Me too, but I was able to do it around 1995-1996 :) Also remember Windows95 can boot with 4MB of RAM, and was decent with 12MB.

Windows95 was decent even with 8 MB, on a 66 MHz or 100 MHz 486 CPU.

With either 4 MB or only a 386 CPU, it was definitely crippled, making an upgrade not worthwhile.

Re: 200 MB RAM FreeBSD desktop

#42

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

argsnd wrote: post #32
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know how resolution maps to ram in x11 but I assume at least one byte per pixel. Based on that assumption, there’s no chance you’d even be able to power a 4k monitor with 8mb of ram, let alone the rest of the system.

Presumably every pixel is 32 bits rather than just 8. So the count starts at 33.2MB just for the display.

Damn pixel bit-depth bloat!

Re: 200 MB RAM FreeBSD desktop

#43

Post by stevefan1999 »

Mashimo wrote: post #31
heraldgeezer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For us not in the know, why is this bad? Is he ""bigoted"" ? :(

I have no idea who he is, never heard of him. You shall not judge a book by its cover but .. he is making it hard. His video titles are: * Devuan: The Non-Woke Debian Linux Fork (Without Systemd) * NeoFetch But in Rust and More Gay * Chimera Linux is "Here to Further Woke Agenda by Turning Free Software Gay" * Are Jews the Cause of DEI in Big Tech? Yeah .. I did not watch a single video of his. But just from a short…

* Are Jews the Cause of DEI in Big Tech?

...errrrrrrrrrrrrr, plot twist, he is a jew himself, or at least he claimed he is.

Re: 200 MB RAM FreeBSD desktop

#44

Post by marhee »

giamma wrote: post #12

It used to be like that, computer had limited resources and desktop environments were light. Then at some point RAM became less and less of an issue, and everything started to get bigger and less efficient. Coyuld anyone summarize why a desktop Windows/MacOs now needs so much more RAM than in the past? is it the UI animations, color themes, shades etc etc or is it the underlying operating system that has more and mor…

> Coyuld anyone summarize why a desktop Windows/MacOs now needs so much more RAM than in the past

Just a single retina screen buffer, assuming something like 2500 by 2500 pixels, 4 byte per pixel is already 25MB for a single buffer. Then you want double buffering, but also a per-window buffer since you don't want to force rewrites 60x per second and we want to drag windows around while showing contents not a wireframe. As you can see just that adds up quickly. And that's just the draw buffers. Not mentioning all the different fonts that are simultaneously used, images that are shown, etc.

(Of course, screen bufferes are typically stored in VRAM once drawn. But you need to drawn first, which is at least in part on the CPU)

Re: 200 MB RAM FreeBSD desktop

#47

Post by cout »

stavros wrote: post #33
argsnd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably every pixel is 32 bits rather than just 8. So the count starts at 33.2MB just for the display.

It is now, but back then it was 1 byte, with typical resolutions being 800x600. There were high-color modes but for a period it was rare to have good enough hardware for it.

I have run x11 in 16-color and 256-color mode, but it was not fun. The palette would get swapped when changing windows, which was quite disorienting. Hardware that could do 16-bit color was common by the late 90s.

Re: 200 MB RAM FreeBSD desktop

#48

Post by actionfromafar »

adrian_b wrote: post #41
daitangio wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too, but I was able to do it around 1995-1996 :) Also remember Windows95 can boot with 4MB of RAM, and was decent with 12MB.

Windows95 was decent even with 8 MB, on a 66 MHz or 100 MHz 486 CPU. With either 4 MB or only a 386 CPU, it was definitely crippled, making an upgrade not worthwhile.

Windows 95 on a 386 CPU with enough RAM was alright. Not fast but very useable.

https://youtu.be/Pw2610paPYM?t=72

But most 386 didn't have 8+ megabytes, and some 386 had a 286 like data bus, making it even slower. (386SX)

Re: 200 MB RAM FreeBSD desktop

#49

Post by riedel »

stavros wrote: post #36
badc0ffee wrote: post #8

I remember booting up Debian into an X11 session on a laptop with only 8 MB of RAM. (This would have been circa 2000, and I think I had to try a few different distros before finding one that worked. Also I don't think I did anything with it beyond Xterm and Xeyes.)

My first PC had 16 MB of RAM, which later obviously became too slow to be usable. I remember I had to wait around a minute for Fallout to load a level, which you had to do fairly frequently.

I remember buying a bulky external 2MB RAM extension (I think I bought another 2MB) before that for my Amiga 500 running a full desktop OS already on 512k 'Chipmemory' using it mostly to actually as a TempFS to accelerate loading. That was beginning to mid 90s, I guess. But running netbsd on the Amiga meant that you would already at that time need 16MB of RAM and a CPU with an MMU as well as an HDD (my friend across the street did that with his A1200 I think I remember). You would only do it if you wanted more networking beyond BBS I guess.

Re: 200 MB RAM FreeBSD desktop

#50

Post by actionfromafar »

cout wrote: post #47
stavros wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is now, but back then it was 1 byte, with typical resolutions being 800x600. There were high-color modes but for a period it was rare to have good enough hardware for it.

I have run x11 in 16-color and 256-color mode, but it was not fun. The palette would get swapped when changing windows, which was quite disorienting. Hardware that could do 16-bit color was common by the late 90s.

Much better to stick to 1 bit per pixel. :-)

Like in Sun SPARCStation ELC. No confusing colors or shades.

Post reply on HN