On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:01:38PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 14:20, Seneca wrote: > > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:58:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 13:39, Seneca wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:50:32AM -0400, Ian D. Stewart wrote: > > > > > On 2002.05.13 05:18 Miroslav Mazurek wrote: > [snip] > > > > I currently run X (4.1.0) on a P100 with 16M RAM and a 2.4 kernel. I > > > > haven't made a final decision yet on my window manager (an experiment > > > > with Enlightenment was a _big_ miskate), but it runs alot faster for me > > > > when all I use X for is to hold a dozen xterms, and then use them to > > > > hold non-X programs (ftp in one, mutt in another, links, vim, and a few > > > > other programs). > > > > > > Why not just use more than the standard 6 virtual consoles? That > > > would be _much_ more memory efficient than X 4.1.0. > > > > The standard 6 are already in use for other stuff (and yes, I do know > > about ^Z), and I need X anyway to connect to a proxy. > > Ah, well. You mean the way that Netscape connects thru web proxies?
Not just any web proxy, but one that requires me to login, and requires java and javascript to do so. > [snip] > > > and that must count for something, even if the swap files _are_ > > > getting seriously excersied. > > > > The swapping has turned this system into a cron-operated alarmclock. > > ???? You mean that, every X hours, there's so much disk activity > that it wakes you up? That's right, and it's a better alarmclock than the purpose-built one than I have. It also is a good heater. (furnace traditionally breaks down on the coldest day of winter, and this laptop, with the help of a single 60W lightbulb kept my desk area comfortably warm) -- Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
