Baslinux mailing list

[James Miller <jamtat AT mailsnare.net>]

I've never tried this, but it sounds very interesting and like something
that could be great news for the computer recycling/reusing crowd.  I
presume you're talking about the utility referenced at the site
http://rick.vanrein.org/linux/badram/ ?  If you attempt to use this,
please post your results - successful or unsuccessful.

James

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Constant Brouerius van Nidek wrote:

> Having my BL2 running satisfactory I want to increase my ram.
> I have some bad rams available and miss the cash to get new good
> ram ;-).
> Would love to include the neccesary patches in the kernel but are a
> little afraid to start working on patching a well working kernel.
> Basicly, how is it done and could I get into troubles with the well
> groomed BL2 kernel if I start patching the beast?
>
> Have downloaded the patch for the badram for kernel 2.2.16 and aeger
> to have my new badram ;-).
>From keesan2 AT grex.cyberspace.org  Wed Apr 30 09:15:03 2003
Return-Path: <keesan2 AT grex.cyberspace.org>
Delivered-To: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from grex.cyberspace.org (grex.cyberspace.org [216.93.104.34])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id A502C200C3
        for <baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:15:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (keesan2@localhost) by grex.cyberspace.org
        (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA15914 for 
<baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed,
        30 Apr 2003 09:13:06 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:13:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: sindi keesan <keesan2 AT cyberspace.org>
To: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [BL] Installation NOW COMPLETE
In-Reply-To: <200304300516.h3U5GMw15510 AT newmail.acepia.net.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1030430084658.6362D-100000 AT grex.cyberspace.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-BeenThere: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
List-Id: <baslinux.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/baslinux>,
        <mailto:baslinux-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/baslinux>
List-Post: <mailto:baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/baslinux>,
        <mailto:baslinux-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:15:04 -0000

>   It DOES run under icewm with the -g parameter, but the colours are
> absolute crap, and the speed of display is pretty glacial at 33 MHz.
> 
>   And neither in CLI or icewm will it display any of the graphics. Just
> text and some pretty ferocious colours. Do I need to get seejpeg.tgz ?
> Or libpng.tgz and such stuff ?
> 
> Regards,
>         Ron
> 

I just did a speed test using Links 2.1.9 to view the same 16M color 640
res jpeg in both console mode (with seejpg - you need to set that in setup
under file associations) and in X.  With seejpeg the file took 10 seconds
to display and it displayed nicely in 256-shade grey (on my mono VGA
monitor).  In X (using the plain VGA 16-color server) it displayed in 5
seconds and it probably looks even worse in 16 colors than in mono (16
grey shades).   I expect if I installed the SVGA X server it would take 10
seconds to display the image and look the same as in console mode.  The
computer hardware (including video card) is what slows it down.  I have an
ISA Trident 8900.  

I did a similar test viewing hotlist.html with both console and X-mode
(graphical) Links 2.1.9.

The console version loaded this text page instantly.
The X version drew it one line at a time (as graphical characters) so it
took maybe 10 times as long to load the page.

So it is clearly faster to browse (even with graphics turned off) using
the console mode of Links 2.1.9.   You could load both versions at the
same time (on two VCs) and switch to X mode if you hit a page that does
not make sense without the inline graphics (assuming you have enough RAM
to load both at once).  Graphical Links (loaded, no pages being viewed)
takes up 2232 bytes more RAM than console X (the 2232 includes X, xterm,
and ratpoison).  Console X (no pages loaded) takes up 140 bytes RAM.

I have a 486 with pentium overdrive cpu (about the speed of a P60) and 32M
RAM and 1M video RAM.  On a 66MHz machine it might be slower.