Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!hbetel
From: hbetel@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Heather Betel)
Subject: Re: 512K & Minix, not really.
Message-ID: <1991May14.002120.9091@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <53386@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 May 1991 00:21:20 GMT
Lines: 20

In article <53386@nigel.ee.udel.edu> mike.irons@lynx.northeastern.edu writes:
>
>	I was reading a note from Andy, and saw him mention machines with
>512K memory. I have Minix on an AT w/512K at school, and it's not very usefull.
>After Minix, SH, and update, there's not much for anything else. Minix was
>designed to be compiled (use in OpSys classes). With this little memory one
>can't use make, and even has problems with shell scripts and compiles. To
>compile I have make -n, then compile into .s and run asld in a script file.
>There isn't enough room to just 'make' it. I think that a requirement of 
>compatability (in regardes to memory size) would have to include being able
>to re-compile the system from .c -> .s (or .o) -> a.out -> Minix.img without
>fancy tricks. In this regards, I would sugest droping 512K machines from
>being listed as compatable (especially since the next version will take up
>even more space, and probably will have even more problems).
>
	I totally disagree. I use minix on an AT/512K, and have very
few problems. In general, I use makefiles that will make the object
files, then link in a separate stage. Not so difficult.

--- Richard