... What I
want is to run modern applications on older hardware.
If modern applications aren't architected to support this, then that
is the problem. ...
It is not uncommon for programmers to write applications that are
sluggish on today's hardware while banking on Moore's Law. So the
statement: "What I want is to run modern applications on older
hardware." produced a chuckle.
While I see what you're saying, especially with reference to the commercial
software world, there must be a huge market full of "now - 1" hardware. A I
don't want to run Linux on a 286 - the machine was a Celeron 500, machines
of which era are probably the bottom end of the machines I would now
consider useful. Why aren't people writing software to capture this market?
Especially in the open source area, where people go on about how they
associate free software with free hardware and speculate that people who can
afford high end machines can afford software to run on them.
Games can offer a contrived example - while everyone loves Quake and its
bretheren, the best selling game of all time is The Sims, which is hardly
driving forth the 3D graphics industry!
Your XP example doesn't surprise me at all though.
What iteration of
x86 was your Linux software compiled for? I mean X, your WM, your
apps and the kernel?
I can only assume that it's an i686 kernel and i386 apps. Fairly standard.
Perry asked me a similar question last night: "have you tried running a
distribution that came out at the same time as Windows XP?"
Windows XP Pro was released on 25-Oct-2001. It seems that the release of
Linux that was 'new' at the time will have been Red Hat 7.2 on 22 October
2001. I had previously thought it to be RH8, which actually came out a year
later on 30 Sep 2002. (See http://www.theosfiles.com
I'm told that kernel 2.6 is better, more responsive, etc, than 2.4 for
desktop use, even (especially!) on older hardware. Support for RH7.2 was
available until this week on Fedora Legacy, however it's being dropped,
along with support for RH8, with the expectation that people can easily
migrate to the final release in each tree (7.3/9) or backport the 7.3/9
I actually believe, perhaps somewhat incorrectly, that running the latest
versions of software is a good thing, and that FC2 with all the extraneous
services disabled could be faster than RH8. RH7.x wouldn't meet the
requirements of running modern software (predating GTK2 for a start).
Perry also asked "why do I expect a 2 week old OS to be better than (however
old Windows XP is)". That's because given a new machine I'd install a 2
week old Linux distribution and a 2.5 year old Windows distribution - they
are both "the most up to date".
I ran a quick,
responsive, usable desktop environment on a 286 at
10Mhz (uphill both ways)
What environment was that?
As Aristotle cleverly picked, GeoWorks Ensemble (however version 2 -
Let I not be compared to DrWho in his saying "I did it all 20 years ago on
my 286", you can still get GeoWorks, which was called NewDeal Office at one
point and is now the very ugly looking "BreadBox Ensemble". But I'm not
using a 286 any more.