3 ms·

Oh wow, now I feel old. I remember compiling and running Java course work on a laptop with 8MB of RAM. The display was monochrome, and the compiler literally to

by e12e 7y ago

Oh wow, now I feel old. I remember compiling and running Java course work on a laptop with 8MB of RAM. The display was monochrome, and the compiler literally took ten minutes to spin up (as go get, and drink a cup of coffee before it's done - probably swapping like mad). But it worked well enough with x11 and fvwm. I see i was on a supercharged "pro" workstation with that much ram, though: http://www.fvwm.org/history/ http://www.fvwm.org/history/ > There were two or three reasons for starting FVWM and RXVT. First, I had a need 33 MHZ 486 laptop PC with only 4 MB of RAM, and I thought linux and X11 were way better than the windows versions of the day. X11 with TWM and xterm would run on my PC, but just barely.

wildduck 7y ago
Wow. Looks like a lot of old computer can be put to good use.
anthk 7y ago
fvwm was always faster than TWM, even if at a first TWM runs faster. Also, TCL would be faster than Java :)
- earenndil 7y ago
  Maybe back then, but nowadays I'm pretty sure java is a lot faster than tcl.
  - e12e 7y ago
    Actually the small Java gui app (tick tack toe, or something like it, I think) ran fine. And I think the startup problems with javac might have been solved too (use less ram) - but I never did get around to it. I think I tried IBMs "jikes" compiler, which I think was (at least partially) implemented in c++. But mostly I was just shocked anyone could think running a wm could reasonablyrrequire a gig of ram...
    - anthk 7y ago
      >But mostly I was just shocked anyone could think running a wm could reasonablyrrequire a gig of ram... Eh, most people run Fvwm/Blackbox/WMaker with 16MB/32MB of RAM. 8... well. To be confortable enough, maybe with NetBSD, FVWM, URxvt, a ultraslimmed kernel and jikes/any tiny Java compatible VM.
asveikau 7y ago
That's funny, because fvwm is much more usable than twm. I would have guessed it would be heavier on reasources because twm didn't do much. I got on a nostalgia kick recently and switched back to fvwm on one of my machines. (Which incidentally runs FreeBSD.)

by e12e 7y ago

wildduck 7y ago

Wow. Looks like a lot of old computer can be put to good use.

anthk 7y ago

fvwm was always faster than TWM, even if at a first TWM runs faster. Also, TCL would be faster than Java :)

earenndil 7y ago
Maybe back then, but nowadays I'm pretty sure java is a lot faster than tcl.
- e12e 7y ago
  Actually the small Java gui app (tick tack toe, or something like it, I think) ran fine. And I think the startup problems with javac might have been solved too (use less ram) - but I never did get around to it. I think I tried IBMs "jikes" compiler, which I think was (at least partially) implemented in c++. But mostly I was just shocked anyone could think running a wm could reasonablyrrequire a gig of ram...
  - anthk 7y ago
    >But mostly I was just shocked anyone could think running a wm could reasonablyrrequire a gig of ram... Eh, most people run Fvwm/Blackbox/WMaker with 16MB/32MB of RAM. 8... well. To be confortable enough, maybe with NetBSD, FVWM, URxvt, a ultraslimmed kernel and jikes/any tiny Java compatible VM.

asveikau 7y ago

That's funny, because fvwm is much more usable than twm. I would have guessed it would be heavier on reasources because twm didn't do much. I got on a nostalgia kick recently and switched back to fvwm on one of my machines. (Which incidentally runs FreeBSD.)