Baslinux mailing list

[3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org]

James Miller wrote:
>
> testing of BL3 some months ago on a 386sx 25 with 4MB RAM.  
> I managed to get it to do 800x600 resolution in 12-bit color, 
> which was a bit surprising.  But what I was really interested 
> in was seeing how it would do as an xterminal.  

Me too.

> I did the necessary things to send the display from a newer 
> machine on my network and ran startxt.  Sure enough, a gui
> app from the more powerful machine appeared on the screen of 
> the 386: I succeeded in starting nedit and firefox this way.  

First question:  were you still running it in 800x600x12 ?

> everything was running as though immersed in a vat of near-
> frozen molasses.  

Second question:  did it swap to HD continuously?  Or was
the slowness caused by something else?  

> The mouse cursor was trailing behind the motions I made with 
> the physical mouse, and I had problems making pop-up menus appear.

Firefox is a tough test to hit it with.  It's quite a busy
application.  Did it perform any better running just nedit?
Or how about just icewm?

> raise the question of whether a 386sx with 4MB RAM can really 
> act as an xterminal.  

In the olden days (when there were still alot of 386s and 486s
around), a 386dx40 with 8mb RAM was considered a suitable system
for an Xterminal.      

Your 386sx25 is way below that.  It is not a good candidate for
an Xterminatl.  Slow speed (25MHz), 16-bit (sx), short of RAM 
(4mb).  Probably no copro.  It is under-powered in every respect.

> My initial experimentation indicates it cannot.  

I was hoping it might provide some utility, but apparently not.

> It was as bad, performance-wise, as running the gui on the
> machine itself.  

That's a surprise.  Standalone X should swap alot more with
4mb RAM than the Xterminal.  The Xterminal should run entirely
within 4mb RAM (standalone X is too big for that).

I wonder whether the 800x600x12 resolution (if that is what 
you used) was slowing everything down?  That would have the 
same effect on standalone X and the Xterminal.   

> Maybe minimum requirements should be upped?

Which minimum requirements?  The BL3 target system has always
been a 486DX.  Even with 4mb, a 486DX is significantly more 
powerful than a 386sx.  It is true that I have not shut the 
door on 386 systems, but I hope I haven't given the impression
that a low-end 386 would make a good Xterminal.

Natually, I've been interested to see what you would be able
to do with your 386sx25, and I appreciate you taking the
trouble to try it.      

> this machine has a 10 BaseT card in it 
> and 10/100 is supposed to be the minimum for xterminals.  

I wouldn't expect that to be an issue.  I've run an Xterminal 
via PLIP (using a 640x480x4 display) and it was less sluggish 
than you discribed.

> I'm using an older version of BL3: might there be any 
> improvement in using the newer one?  

Probably not.  Xvesa is doing the work and that has not
changed.

> I'm willing to try, if it seems a worthwhile experiment.

I think a worthwhile experiment would be to run the Xterminal 
at the lowest possible resolution.  640x480x1 ???
Perhaps if it had fewer pixels to push around, it might
perform a wee bit better?

> And finally, I'll just ask if you think upping the RAM 
> in this machine would make it useable as an xterminal?  

Upping the RAM from 4mb should have a noticeable effect 
on X (but whether that will be enough to make it "useable"
remains to be seen).

> I can't easily try that (no 30 pin simms of larger size here), 

What you need is a pair of 4mb 30pin SIMMs.
Your 386sx takes pairs.  386dx and 486 systems need 
four SIMMs at a time.  I don't suppose Sindi has an 
odd pair of 4mb SIMMs?

Cheers,
Steven

____________________________
http://www.basiclinux.com.ru