Hello world... :)
--Murn wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Tobias wrote:
>
> t> I remembered reading about that older computers didn't have enough
> t> memory to handle the TCP/IP stack.
>
> Oops, I wish I'd known that before I used cutcp on my XT for a year.
>
> t> -Where the memory limitation is a bigger obsticle than the cpu
> t> performance, we could use a fast compression algoritm to compress all
> t> the packets in-memory.
>
> I don't really think this is an issue. Packets aren't supposed to remain
> in memory. If you've got a fast enough CPU, you should work on getting
> the socket layer getting the packets out of memory as fast as possible,
> rather than working out the best way to leave them there.
--JueyChong Ong wrote:
>>From the perspective of someone who is unfamiliar with the ELKS architecture,
>I don't think it should be a problem, since the early versions of
>NCSA Telnet for MS-DOS ran on 8088 and 8086-based PCs.
...
The computers I had in mind was those with (say) 128 to 256 kb of RAM;
x86 or not.
(Running an Atari Portfolio with TCP/IP in Linux-8086, for example :)
-I had already heard that 512 kb was enough ta handle TCP/IP, but I find
it hard to beleive that AT's would run the software mentioned in 128 kb
of total RAM.
(At speeds higher than 2400 bits/s, anyways. Remember that Linux-8086
probably uses more memory than early DOS versions).
What I wanted was a discussion about TCP/IP in computers with very
limited memory.
But if the discussion about network-capabilities was targeted directly
at the standard AT/XT, I guess there's no need for it. Sorry?
--Tobias Ekbom
PS. Anyone ever tried putting ELKS in ROM for computers with tiny
memory?
