Re: Red Hat On Yesterday's Hardware

[vincent <pros-n-cons bak rr com>]

I run either links2 or dillo as my main browsers

http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~clock/twibright/links/
http://www.dillo.org/

keeping opera,firebird and mozilla around justincase. 
Links2 seems to be my new favorite over dillo cause it
handles ftp, ssl, javascript, and plays nice with netscape bookmarks
that I converted from opera. But it doesn't have the normal forward button, has trouble with inputboxes (hotmail, slashdot) and In general
has a few things that need getting used to.

window manager: fluxbox has tabs and speed, 'nuff said.

As one reply mentioned tinyX try it out. Xfbdev, Xvesa, etc

Use rxvt as your terminal, its very cheap

I use a 233 with 64 mb ram but when using these apps I don't
even notice what system I'm on. so they should be decent for
something slower.

e-mail I use sylpheed. alot of functionality for its responsiveness


On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:10:28 -0700
Gordon Pritchard <gordonp sfu ca> said:

> On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 21:15, Robert L Cochran wrote:
> 
> > I see from the release notes for Red Hat 9 that the minimum CPU is a
> > Pentium class and the minumum memory is 64 Mb, rock bottom. 
> > My question is, what is the lowest-end system that one can get
> > realistically decent graphics performance from with Red Hat 9? Including
> > internetting and office management tasks? A Pentium 90? Pentium 66? How
> > low can I go before the hardware chokes the OS performance-wise? 
> 
> 	I ran a P-166/64MB with RH8.  Out-of-the-box, it was very slow doing
> anything in X (1024x768, 16bpp).  I was not happy with it (but that
> unhappiness ultimately led to a new machine :-) ).
> 
> 	The only way I could get reasonable performance was to change
> window-managers.  First, I tried the very-minimalist one that was
> included (twm???).  Later, I installed and tried iceWM.  Now, I was
> happy with iceWM:  the machine seemed snappy and responsive.
> 
> 	I never tried it with office-type apps, but browsing (Galeon was my
> choice, after watching system-resource-consumption with alternatives)
> was fine.  I also used a number of ham-radio applications, and they too
> were fine (but not graphically-intensive).
> 
> 	So, my bottom-line suggestion is that X and in particular the WM will
> dictate largely how satisfied you will be.  Out-of-the-box, I don't
> think RH9 is very usable on the low-end Pentium stuff you're suggesting,
> for the apps you're considering.
> 
> 	My $0.02,
> 	-Gord
> 
> -- 
> Gordon Pritchard, P.Eng.         | Institute of Electrical and
> Research Labs Manager            |      Electronics Engineers
> Simon Fraser University, Surrey  | Quarter Century Wireless Ass'n
> gordonp sfu ca                   | Telephone Pioneers of America
> phone:  604.268.7509             | Amateur Radio:  VA7SFU, VA7GP
> 
> 
> -- 
> Shrike-list mailing list
> Shrike-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list