[HN Gopher] Tiny Core Linux 13 Released: Needs Just 46MB of RAM,...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Tiny Core Linux 13 Released: Needs Just 46MB of RAM, 50MB of Disk
        
       Author : em3rgent0rdr
       Score  : 40 points
       Date   : 2022-02-07 19:14 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
        
       | anthk wrote:
       | A point: NetBSD would still run fine under a Pentium and 48-64MB
       | of RAM once you make the kernel smaller.
        
       | Koshkin wrote:
       | Just wanted to note that at the time Linux appeared back in the
       | 90's, 46MB would have been an _insanely large_ amount of RAM.
       | (And so it still is today in the majority of embedded
       | situations.)
        
         | anthk wrote:
         | And by late 90's 46MB would be so-so for Windows 98.
        
         | hulitu wrote:
         | Came here to say the same thing. You could run X with Netscape
         | in 12 Megs of RAM.
        
         | povkys wrote:
         | Yep, I've used freesco linux which was installed on 1.44mb
         | floppy. I've used it for routing internet for a few neighbors,
         | to lower the cost of expensive dsl line.
        
         | wang_li wrote:
         | Used to boot Linux from a 1.2 MB 5 1/4" floppy with the kernel,
         | network drivers, shell, and X Windows server on an i386 with 8
         | MB RAM. Made for a perfectly fine X terminal.
        
         | NackerHughes wrote:
         | Could you recommend a Linux distro that runs on computers with
         | less than 46MB of RAM?
        
           | anthk wrote:
           | OpenBSD once the kernel is slimmed down.
        
         | bjoli wrote:
         | I remember running X on Linux on a system with 20 megs of ram.
         | 
         | I Wonder how much is bloat and how much is trading memory use
         | for speed. And the obvious part of 64-bit Vs 32-bit...
        
         | daveslash wrote:
         | Agreed. Nice perspective. Our first home computer was a Windows
         | 3.1 machine, which had 16MB of RAM IIRC... Even if I recall
         | incorrectly, it definitely wasn't 48Megs.
        
           | hulitu wrote:
           | I had a friend with Cyrix 6x86 MMX which had 32 MB of RAM.
        
           | bluedino wrote:
           | That was a large amount of memory for a Windows 3.1 machine.
           | 8MB systems were still common in the 95/98 days.
        
             | daveslash wrote:
             | You may be right... it may have been only 8. It was a while
             | ago (obviously) and I was a kid who didn't really commit
             | these things to memory very well. I do remember that we had
             | to open up SYSTEM.INI in notepad and comment out some of
             | the Windows internals and reboot the machine just to have
             | enough ram to play Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness.
        
         | icedchai wrote:
         | Definitely. My first Linux box was a 386-SX/20 mhz with 3 megs
         | of RAM (1 on the motherboard, 2 expansion.) Originally I was
         | running Coherent, a closed-source Unix clone.
         | 
         | By '97 or so, I had a whopping 32 megs on a Pentium 100.
        
       | throwawaymanbot wrote:
        
       | anthk wrote:
       | Does is still have the horrible dock? A plain FLWM or Fluxbox
       | would be better.
        
         | hulitu wrote:
         | You can always use { c,v}tvm. Also fvwm is the best.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-02-07 23:02 UTC)