Re: "obsolete" hardware

Rob (
Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:43:29 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, yuri mironoff wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Trevor Jenkins wrote:
> >
> > I'm looking forward to the day when my venerable old 386 can be
> > retired from running MS-DOS/Windows 3.1 to the freedom of running
> > Linux. If by the time I do that I'm expected to bleed because
> > Linux will then only working on cutting edge stuff then I'll not
> > remain a Linux supporter for long.
> >
> > There's a difference between wanting and having. The real beauty of
> > Linux, for me and I suspect others, is that we can run multi-user
> > services/servers on hardware that cannot run Windows 3.1 let alone
> > run Windows 95.
> Of course there is another way of looking at this. There are lots
> of current and upcoming applications that do require lots of horsepower.
> By the same token there are fewer and fewer (if any) applications being
> written that target a 486 (let alone a 386) as a minimum requirement. Try
> running anything X/Motif based and you'll see what I mean. If Linux
> developers concentrate their attention on trying to be compatible with
> obsolete hardware as opposed to taking advantage of cutting edge features
> other operating systems will overtake Linux by running slower on faster
> hardware - not exactly a pretty picture.

I ran X/Motif on my dx2-66 and dx4-100, both ran very admirably.

> Bottom line is I'd rather say "Linux runs faster on a quad P7" than
> "Linux still runs on my 2mb 386" a year from now. A well executed design
> means nothing unless it performs. Nothing PERFORMS on a 386. Lets not
> loose sight of our goals here for the sake of keeping backward
> compatibility.

But if you run stuff that doesn't need a high-power PERFORMING processor,
then whats the point. use what you need, not what you don't need.

> Take as a warning the longevity of the PC bus architecture. Would you
> care to guess why we're still stuck with it? Backward compatibility. Its a
> dirty word.
> Regards,
> Y.
> P.S. I skipped a more than a couple of lunches to upgrade to my
> first Pentium. Not that many really - but it was definitely worth it. ;)