Re: success on 386 (was: Re: Does anybody try to compile...)

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2000 - 07:45:35 EST

Next message: Douglas Gilbert: "Re: 2.3.45 compile glitch (SCSI stuff)"

Previous message: Erik Mouw: "Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux"
In reply to: Tuukka Toivonen: "success on 386 (was: Re: Does anybody try to compile...)"
Next in thread: Tuukka Toivonen: "Re: success on 386 (was: Re: Does anybody try to compile...)"
Next in thread: Riley Williams: "Re: Does anybody try to compile the 2.3 kernels at all ? :(("
Reply: Tuukka Toivonen: "Re: success on 386 (was: Re: Does anybody try to compile...)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> lot faster. Yes, X+Linux is more complex but I think that the real reason
> is that X is portable and written in C: windoze has probably
> assembly-optimized VGA drivers.

X has very optimised video drivers. Thats a good 250K of your X server.
Unrolled loops tuned for old era CPU's like the 386. So no I don't think that
is why. X is just a bit heavier and without the RAM for it your machine
thrashes.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Douglas Gilbert: "Re: 2.3.45 compile glitch (SCSI stuff)"
Previous message: Erik Mouw: "Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux"
In reply to: Tuukka Toivonen: "success on 386 (was: Re: Does anybody try to compile...)"
Next in thread: Tuukka Toivonen: "Re: success on 386 (was: Re: Does anybody try to compile...)"
Next in thread: Riley Williams: "Re: Does anybody try to compile the 2.3 kernels at all ? :(("
Reply: Tuukka Toivonen: "Re: success on 386 (was: Re: Does anybody try to compile...)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 07:51:15 EST