Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:48:26 +0100 (CET)
From:      Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To:        Sean Cavanaugh <millenia2000@hotmail.com>
Cc:        chowse@charter.net, fbsd@bomgardner.net, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   RE: Portsnap vs CSup
Message-ID:  <alpine.BSF.2.00.0903201647360.79600@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
In-Reply-To: <BAY126-W143F3D1D4976B92944238BCA970@phx.gbl>
References:  <8250ac3f0903191139m7c895ff9gde584ad16e3923f0@mail.gmail.com> <49C29970.3070503@gmail.com> <B03C7532-C4E5-43F0-A877-7A88C5D5483C@charter.net> <20090319184847.J29356@tripel.monochrome.org> <20090319234359.M64636@brightstar.bomgardner.net> <BAY126-W143F3D1D4976B92944238BCA970@phx.gbl>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
>
> compiling the kernel on that could take several days by itself let alone compiling X and then a thick GUI like KDE or GNOME. amazing that a 100MHz system with 48 megs of ram can still run so fast if you build it right.
>
for sure not KDE, but X and FreeBSD itself with good software running on 
it works FAST on 100Mhz machine with 48MB RAM.

Yes compiling is slow, but normal usage is FAST.





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0903201647360.79600>