Thread: Silliness So what are you doing RIGHT NOW?
View Single Post
Old 10-03-2010, 02:10 AM   #23032
devilsadvocate
Complicated Warlock
devilsadvocate is a good role modeldevilsadvocate is a good role modeldevilsadvocate is a good role modeldevilsadvocate is a good role modeldevilsadvocate is a good role modeldevilsadvocate is a good role modeldevilsadvocate is a good role modeldevilsadvocate is a good role modeldevilsadvocate is a good role modeldevilsadvocate is a good role modeldevilsadvocate is a good role model
 
devilsadvocate's Avatar
 
Posts: 677
Karma: 160970
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Madiganistan
Device: HP Mini 1101, Droid X rooted, GTab rooted/VEGAnTAB Ginger Edition/CM7
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney View Post
Not in my experience. XP wants 512MB minimum to think about performing. If it doesn't get it, you get a good PC imitation of mainframe "death by thrashing", as it spends more time swapping stuff in and out of RAM than it does doing actual work.
Then either I'm blessed or you're cursed. Just a few months ago I installed it on 2 separate machines (1 with a 30GB drive and 1 with a 40GB, both ATA-133) for a friend of mine to unload on FleaBay for US$15 or whatever. Both had 128 MB RAM and 733 MHz processors (one was an AMD K6 I believe, the other an Intel Celeron). All the way through a Service Pack 3 update, neither would win any races but neither choked. One of my long-ago store-bought Gateway machines had 256 MB and a Celeron; XP didn't give me any more problems than anyone else dealt with and I was greedy, at least by 2003 standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney View Post
From what I can tell, the real killer here is disk I/O. As mentioned, it's a UDMA 4 HD, and there's insufficient RAM to do the sort of caching that might help. (It's also unclear that a faster drive would help. There appear to be mobo/BIOS limitations involved, and what I have is the best that can be supported.)
Doesn't surprise me; drive I/O is the biggest speed killer of them all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney View Post
GTK isn't a problem. And XFCE performs well enough.
Well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney View Post
Posters on the Ubuntu forums suggested too much Gnome had crept in and it was no longer really lightweight, and that Ubuntu had a steadily advancing idea of what "low end" was. The recommended an install from the MinimalCD.
Gnome uses GTK. So does XFCE, though not as extensively. This is why Ubuntu (and Fedora) suffer from what I've referred to as a 3BGD error, for "3 Billion Gnome Dependencies".

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney View Post
I don't care about the multiple bootable images sharing a CD. I may have to spring for a USB floppy. (Part of the exercise with the ancient box was to see how much performance I could squeeze out of it without spending money on it.)
That's why I mentioned the multiboot CD in the first place; don't need a floppy drive that way, just make ISOs. Just trying to be helpful.
devilsadvocate is offline   Reply With Quote