Baslinux mailing list

[James Miller <jamtat AT mailsnare.net>]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org wrote:

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

Yes.

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

Didn't notice swapping.  I wondered if maybe low video memory might be
part of the problem.

> Firefox is a tough test to hit it with.

Of the 4 or 5 apps I tried to start, Firefox and nedit were the only ones
that actually worked.

> application.  Did it perform any better running just nedit?
> Or how about just icewm?

I couldn't really do anything with nedit.  Clicking on menus didn't cause
drop-downs to appear, like normal.  It wasn't responding to keyboard input
either--not sure why, because the keyboard was working fine in the
console.  I don't have Icewm on the app server.  I've got Ion3, Fluxbox
and PWM though.  But how would I export a window manager?  I'm a bit lost
on that.

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

Works fine in console mode, though it strains the notion of multi-tasking:
you really can't have more than two lightweight console apps (say links
and mc) running at the same time or it gets too slow to even use.

> 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.

Guess I forgot about the dx requirement.  Trying an even less capable
system can offer some interesting data nonetheless, it seems.

> 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?

I'll try and conduct such a test soon.

James