| ▲ | badc0ffee 4 hours ago |
| I remember booting up Debian into an X11 session on a laptop with only 8 MB of RAM. (This would have been circa 2000, and I think I had to try a few different distros before finding one that worked. Also I don't think I did anything with it beyond Xterm and Xeyes.) |
|
| ▲ | don-bright 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Ran linux in an 8 mb 486 in the 90s. X ran in 256 color mode and twm or mwm were the window managers. It was so hard to use though. Had to setup modelines settings for your monitor in a textfile and theoretically could damage it with wrong iputs. Programming X fuggedabout it - I was from turbo borland msdos land where everything was neatly documented and designed with clear examples to make programming easy. I was lucky to get an x program to even compile. Hard to find books back then. Pre Amazon. Xv image viewer probably the only thing i used X for. Actually used the machine most of the time in the text mode terminals using alt function keys and used lynx as a browser (before javascript… but gopher was becoming obsolete at that point… ftp still popular though ) with random assortment of svgalib programs for any graphical stuff. Still there was something magical about seeing that black and white check pattern come up and the little X mouse cursor appear.. like there were… possibilities. |
|
| ▲ | blackhaz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I am amazed to discover that Xfce of that era was so CDEsque:
https://www.linux.co.cr/desktops/review/2000/xfce-3.3/help.h... |
| |
| ▲ | ch_123 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It was originally created as a CDE clone (thus the original name "XForms Common Environment") |
|
|
| ▲ | guenthert 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That would have been then already some kind of anachronism. 8MiB RAM was workable (but only barely so with X11) in the early nineties. Late nineties 64MiB or more were common. |
|
| ▲ | hnlmorg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I doesn’t feel like that long ago when I built a swarm of Arch Linux based thin clients which PXE booted from a SLES DHCP & NFS host. That was probably around 2010 or 2015. Those images had to run on a thin client with 512 MB RAM. I think I chose XFCE as the DE. |
| |
| ▲ | forinti 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | In college we had a network of Sun workstations and some of the machines had only 8MB of RAM, IIRC. This was in the 90s. Then again, the X desktop was really minimal and I would use them mostly to code in C using a terminal. |
|
|
| ▲ | daitangio 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Me too, but I was able to do it around 1995-1996 :)
Also remember Windows95 can boot with 4MB of RAM, and was decent with 12MB. |
| |
| ▲ | adrian_b 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Windows95 was decent even with 8 MB, on a 66 MHz or 100 MHz 486 CPU. With either 4 MB or only a 386 CPU, it was definitely crippled, making an upgrade not worthwhile. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | stavros 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My first PC had 16 MB of RAM, which later obviously became too slow to be usable. I remember I had to wait around a minute for Fallout to load a level, which you had to do fairly frequently. |
| |
| ▲ | riedel 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I remember buying a bulky external 2MB RAM extension (I think I bought another 2MB) before that for my Amiga 500 running a full desktop OS already on 512k 'Chipmemory' using it mostly to actually as a TempFS to accelerate loading. That was beginning to mid 90s, I guess. But running netbsd on the Amiga meant that you would already at that time need 16MB of RAM and a CPU with an MMU as well as an HDD (my friend across the street did that with his A1200 I think I remember). You would only do it if you wanted more networking beyond BBS I guess. |
|
|
| ▲ | hsbauauvhabzb 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don’t know how resolution maps to ram in x11 but I assume at least one byte per pixel. Based on that assumption, there’s no chance you’d even be able to power a 4k monitor with 8mb of ram, let alone the rest of the system. |
| |
| ▲ | PaulRobinson an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Correct, 4k is very modern by these standards. But then I'm old, so perhaps it's all about perspective. Back in the days when computers had 8MB of RAM to handle all that MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 goodness, we were still in the territory of VGA [0], and SVGA [1] territory, and the graphics cards (sorry, integrated graphics on the motherboard?! You're living in the future there, that's years away!), had their own RAM to support those resolutions and colour depths. Of course, this is all for PCs. By the mid-1990s you could get a SPARCstation 5 [2] with a 24" Sun-branded Sony Trinitron monitor that was rather more capable. [0] Maxed out at 640 x 480 in 16-colour from an 18-bit colour gamut [1] The "S" is for Super: 1280 x 1024 with 256 colours! [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARCstation_5 | |
| ▲ | p_l 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This was the main driver of VGA memory size for a time - if you spent money on 2MB card instead of a 1MB, you could have higher resolution or bit depth. if you had a big enough framebuffer in your display adapter, though, X11 could display more than your main ram could support - the design, when using "classic way", allowed X server to draw directly on framebuffer memory (just like GDI did) | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | X11 was designed to support bit depths down to 1 bit per pixel. | |
| ▲ | argsnd 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Presumably every pixel is 32 bits rather than just 8. So the count starts at 33.2MB just for the display. | | |
| ▲ | stavros 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It is now, but back then it was 1 byte, with typical resolutions being 800x600. There were high-color modes but for a period it was rare to have good enough hardware for it. | | |
| ▲ | cout 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have run x11 in 16-color and 256-color mode, but it was not fun. The palette would get swapped when changing windows, which was quite disorienting. Hardware that could do 16-bit color was common by the late 90s. | | |
| ▲ | p_l 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fun thing - SGI specifically used 256 color mode a lot, to reduce memory usage even if you used 24bit outputs. So long as you used defaults of their Motif fork, everything you didn't specifically request to use more colors would use 256 color visuals which then were composited in hardware. | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Much better to stick to 1 bit per pixel. :-) Like in Sun SPARCStation ELC. No confusing colors or shades. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 1bpp (at low resolution) is still relevant today on epaper screens, though some of them now allow for shades of grey or even color. | | |
| ▲ | t-3 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Most aren't all that low res either... 300dpi is standard. |
| |
| ▲ | b112 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But what if it's a UTF8 bit? Then it'd be 2 bits. Which proves time travel exists, all those "two bits" references in old Westerns. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hsbauauvhabzb 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Damn pixel bit-depth bloat! |
|
|