On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 04:50:31PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> 
> >I'm claiming that your expectations are way out of line.  You're trying to
> >work with data and executables that are somewhere between one and two 
> >orders
> >of magnitude as large as they were when the amount of memory on your system
> >was appropriate for its job -- yet expecting performance to be good with
> >default system tuning.  I think that's absurd, and I think that changing 
> >the
> >default system tuning to accomodate this use would probably break more than
> >it fixes.
> 
> But actually, if we're talking in perspective to what we did/have 20 years 
> ago, I'm asking way less now. Back in the '80s, the memory demands far 
> outpaced the supply. Memory was much more scarce then, even compared to 
> the usage. So, if anything, we have a situation nowadays making much less 
> demands on the machine and OS.

I don't agree.  My 11/750 had 6MB.  csh and vi totalled to a few tens
of kilobytes -- most of which was shared, no matter how many users ran
them.

Your box has 128MB total, right?  Well, you've said you're running netscape;
that's a single 40MB process.  The numbers just don't add up.

Thor