From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Nov 12 13:50:40 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA29117 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:50:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from frosk.zoo.uib.no (frosk.zoo.uib.no [129.177.64.31]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA29109 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:50:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from oystein@localhost) by frosk.zoo.uib.no (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA08531; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:50:14 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:50:14 +0100 (MET) From: Oystein Soreide To: Jason Lixfeld cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: New FreeBSD Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > I'm in the process of receiving a 486 DX2-66 with prolly 8MB of RAM > (possibly 16, but lets say 8 to low ball it). What I need to know, is ho= w The system would depend highly on the efficiency of the hard-drive. The=20 kernal and X would take more than half of RAM. This system would perform= =20 well with small load. I have an 486dx2-66 with 24mb of ram and I feel it=20 works all right. Earlier I had 8mb and it's a great difference in=20 performance especially when many large programs are running simultaneously. e.g. running netscape, emacs and gnu cc at the same time. In other words: more ram is substantial for the performance. =D8ystein --------------------------------- =D8ystein S=F8reide Institute of Zoology at University of Bergen Allegt. 41 5007 Bergen