>From: "Steven C. Darnold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I've never tried Netscape 4, but I've heard that it is >too resource hungry for an old PC. Surely Vector could >have chosen a better browser? I'm disappointed. > That version of Vector came out in 2000. If I recall correctly, there was not much else in the way of useful (and somewhat java-capable) browsers for Linux at that time. Anyway, I used Netscape 4.77 fairly successfully on my P 75 with 32MB RAM plus swap. It was slow, but not intolerable (not like running IE4 on a 486 with Win31 and 16MB RAM was). But, as I understand it, we're shooting for 486 16 MB RAM with swap as a sort of "sweet spot" performance-wise. The little bit of fiddling I've done so far with Netscape 4.7? on my 486 66 DX2 (AMD) with 20 MB RAM (30 pin simms) and 40 MB swap has shown that it borders on intolerably slow. But I need to do some more fiddling: all I've done so far is start the browser. I haven't connected to the 'net yet to start surfing. But it doesn't look hopeful at this point.
>> Sure. Just install Qt, kdelibs and kdebase, > >This is a joke, right? I was going to comment that there seemed to be a few too many "just . . ."(s) in that citation. It's a huge portion of KDE, and I can't believe *all* of it is required "just" to run the browser :). > >That could be a problem. I only have limited web space >-- not enough to store large binaries for downloading. > I might be acquiring some additional web space soon. I'll be sure to inform you if I do and if I can store any binaries there. Wouldn't another possibility be to make a CD that could be copied and sold by, e.g., Edmunds-Enterprises at .99? >> Compiling Light from source requires Mozilla 0.9.6+ and >> Mozilla headers. > >That is a huge chunk of source code. Not the sort >of job I enjoy doing on my P166 with 540mb HD. > I've got lots of HD space on some of my machines, all kinds of versions of Mozilla, and faster processors (766Mhz, 1Ghz). Maybe I can help with that - if it doesn't surpass my somewhat limited level of expertise. James PS On your HD problems: couldn't the BIOS on the machine in question be misreading the HD parameters? As I understand it, DOS is much more reliant on BIOS info and settings than Linux. That would, maybe, explain Linux's capability to boot the HD (- with a floppy assist) and run from it, while DOS cannot boot, owing to the BIOS misreading the HD parameters and thus being unable to find the boot sector (thereby reporting "no OS found"). Strikes me as a possibility. To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
