from Rugxulo:
Light-weight? First of all, Linux (and similarly Windows and Mac)
don't target older machines. To them, an old machine is i686 with 256
MB of RAM, and even that is too old for most distros. The bare
minimum (for now) seems to be a Pentium 4, and that won't be supported
forever.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that it's pointless to pretend that
all web browsers (and OSes and cpus) are created equal. Most aren't
supported well, if at all. Even the developers who know how just don't
care enough.
If
Thomas Mueller mueller6...@twc.com said:
There are some Linux distros for older computers, and NetBSD and
FreeBSD can be installed on older computers.
But building packages or the system from source is likely to be
prohibitively slow on older machines.
But these distros do not run newer
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Jose Antonio Senna
jasse...@vivointernetdiscada.com.br wrote:
I agree with D M Cunney that javascript is the most important
shortcoming of DOS browsers, but I think HTML5 less needed
than SSL v3
People are full speed ahead on HTML5 largely because the video
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:59 AM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that it's pointless to pretend that
all web browsers (and OSes and cpus) are created equal. Most aren't
supported
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:59 AM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that it's pointless to pretend that
all web browsers
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:32 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
[SNIP]
There is a pervasive bias against anything that isn't Windows, OS X,
or Linux, and those (at least in modern, supported versions) don't
target legacy machines (esp. nothing older than a P4). The trend seems
to
On 12/16/2014 2:50 PM, Louis Santillan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:32 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
Hardware is steadily smaller, faster, and cheaper. Have fun finding a
new x86 machine these days that *isn't* 64 bit. ARM is still largely
32 bit, but that's changing
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Louis Santillan lpsan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:32 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
And why *should* they target legacy machines? Exactly how long is
something supposed to be supported?
Hardware is steadily smaller, faster,
On 12/16/2014 3:56 PM, dmccunney wrote:
I was talking about what you see if you go to purchase a
desktop/laptop/netbook/what have you. IoT kit is not stuff end users
will run to access the Internet and browse websites.
Then why would you use DOS for those kind of tasks? It's the same thing.
On 12/16/2014 4:01 PM, dmccunney wrote:
Even if all Intel based PCs are equipped with 64bit capable CPUs, they
will just as happy run 32bit or even 16bit code just fine.
Assuming OS support is there. The instruction set is the same.
Various system calls may not be. If you want to run DOS
11 matches
Mail list logo
