3 ms·
> so no way was it running in 4 megs in the early 2000's. You are exaggerating. No, I am not. I used to do that with at least 2.2 kernels. https://tldp.org/HOW
by AshamedCaptain 3y ago
> so no way was it running in 4 megs in the early 2000's. You are exaggerating.
No, I am not. I used to do that with at least 2.2 kernels. https://tldp.org/HOWTO/4mb-Laptops.html https://tldp.org/HOWTO/4mb-Laptops.html
But besides, I know 4MB in 2000s was low enough to be awkward. The point is that _it could_. NT in 93 could not even boot with 8MB RAM, and then it was definitely not low.
- icedchai 3y agoFrom https://tldp.org/HOWTO/4mb-Laptops-1.html#ss1.5 https://tldp.org/HOWTO/4mb-Laptops-1.html#ss1.5 : “It isn't going to run X” This seems to confirm my statement.
- AshamedCaptain 3y agoI still have the machine. Removing all but 4M and booting XFree VGA with an xterm doesn't even use more than 500KiB of swap, so it's actually usable. So is 95. On the same machine, NT 3.5 BSODs. With 12MB is the first I can get it to boot, albeit it complains that some services failed to start, and generally thrashes like hell, using 20MB of swap... You can even try muLinux yourself, albeit it's kernel 2.0, not 2.2, and it opens some X11 utils that bump swap usage to 2MB (not very usable).