Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!hedrick From: hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport Subject: Re: microport memory Message-ID: Date: 26 May 88 00:30:23 GMT References: <53709@sun.uucp> Distribution: na Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 19 To: shh%guppy@Sun.COM Shiv Haris asks about the minimum amount of memory needed to run Microport Unix. I found that Microport SV/AT (i.e. for 286) ran usefully in a 1MB machine. Compiles were very slow, but the system were still tolerable. I'd think anything less than that would get exponentially worse. I ran in 1MB for a few weeks, but quickly decided that 1.5 was the minimum I'd tolerate. That extra 512K did make a noticable difference, but I wouldn't say 1M was too painful. Note that I am using a bare minimum system: a single user on the console, and no daemons other than the print spooler. However I am reluctant to recommend SV/AT in any configuration, lest I mislead people into believing that I endorse it. I had originally written a long paragraph describing the reasons I can't stand SV/AT. (My problems are not with Microport specifically, by the way, but with System V.) Because this group has generally been mercifully free of flames, I've decided to omit it. However I would like to be sure that no one interprets my participation in this group as meaning that I consider system V release 2 as an acceptable operating system, particularly for a personal computer.