Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

baslinux - Re: [BL] BL3 on 386sx no-copro update

baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Baslinux mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: 3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org
  • To: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [BL] BL3 on 386sx no-copro update
  • Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:32:23 +1300

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page