On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:16:07PM +0100, Clive Hills wrote: > I've only got 64Mb of ram on the SS5/170 that I'm running 9 on and it > seems no better and no worse than Solaris 8 on that platform. As always > I'm sure that it would be happier with at least 128Mb.
AIUI, 2.6 ran nicely in 64Mb, 7 was bearable, but 8 unacceptably bad. Those are for running as a workstation with X and stuff, so on a server, 64Mb may be acceptable. Any OS, however, that doesn't run well in 128Mb is a broken OS in my opinion, and that 128Mb should include X. Yes, Mac OS X, I'm criticising you twice in the same sentence there. > I was quite surprised that 9 ran on sun4m as the first beta was sun4u > only but the beta refresh doesn't have that restriction. I am rather surprised that they're still supporting older Sparcs. It's jolly decent of them. Don't suppose you know if they still support 4c and 4d machines do you? > Shame they dropped Solaris 9/x86 though. This must be a definition of "shame" that I'm not familiar with. Solaris for x86 is nasty. Taking it out and shooting it is more humane than it deserves. Now, I'm normally pretty harsh in my criticism of x86 bitty- boxes, but Solaris for x86 is so awful that it defiles even those abominations. -- Lord Protector David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david WARNING! People in front of screen are stupider than they appear -- Tanuki the Raccoon-dog, in the Monastery
