From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Dec 7 19:56:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id TAA24065 for chat-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 19:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from hamby1.lightside.net (hamby1.lightside.net [207.67.176.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA24046 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 19:56:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (jehamby@localhost) by hamby1.lightside.net (8.8.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id TAA02475; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 19:56:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: hamby1.lightside.net: jehamby owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 19:56:30 -0800 (PST) From: Jake Hamby X-Sender: jehamby@hamby1 To: Joerg Wunsch cc: chat@FreeBSD.org, dkelly@hiwaay.net Subject: Slowest machine [was Re: TCP/IP...] In-Reply-To: <199612072050.VAA22583@uriah.heep.sax.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Talking about old crappy hardware, I was just reading a notice on SCO XENIX. Apparently, SCO recently released an update to fix XENIX for the year 2000, and they said this was probably the last update ever to XENIX. SCO doesn't want to support it anymore because, among other braindamage, it is nearly impossible to find hardware OLD and SLOW enough to run it! Some highlights: * Fastest computer it will run on is a Pentium 90 (and then only if you turn external cache off!) * Maximum RAM supported: 16MB * Largest hard drive supported: 540MB IDE, or 1GB SCSI The thrust of the article was that even buying the cheapest Far East no-name vendors products from a computer swap meet, you won't find old enough hardware to run XENIX. So, maybe if you hold onto those 386SX systems you can sell them for big bucks to some desparate XENIX luser. For more insightful comments on SCO, see my next post to hackers, "Help I've been SCOed!" about my day trying to upgrade one to Solaris/x86, and how we can market FreeBSD to SCO users. -- Jake On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, J Wunsch wrote: > As Joe Greco wrote: > > > What are you bellyaching about!! I have.. a.. > > > > 386SX/16 with 3MB RAM (2 1x9's plus 4 256kX4's) > > > Any takers? I can (barely) think of worse configurations. Surely > > somebody has one! > > Hmpf. Well, you'll get me to the point to test my 2 MB machine at > work again! Some day... ;-) > > Last time i tested, the kernel had a bad bug that caused the KVA space > to suddenly exhaust on such a small machine. Hence i've only got it > into single-user mode, any multi-user attempt or other work than just > a single shell quickly panicked the box. This kernel bug has been > fixed since, so i might try again. > > -- > cheers, J"org > > joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE > Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) > >