unix and memory, sigh (was Re: What Happens If You Have > 9 Meg??

[Heiko Blume]

david at kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes:

>In article <1991Jan27.183019.18321 at scuzzy.in-berlin.de> src at scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) writes:
>>you are welcome to send me $2000 so i can purchase a good graphics card/monitor
>>for my 386.
>Hey, If I had $2000, I get a good graphics card and monitor for my 386!  Have
>you ever ran X on a standard VGA?  640x480x16?  Tis a shame, since my VGA card
>supports 800x600x256, but my X drivers don;t support my card.

well, get the x11r4 server source that Mr Roell made available.
than you won't depend on your vendor and get a faster/newer X too.

> The standard
>A3000 isn't much better.  It supports some better resolutions, but nothing like
>1024x768x256-- the resolution I am starting to think should be minimum for 
>X workstations.

agreed, that's minimum.

>  Now that's 768K of display memory, which makes a total of 4
>meg of RAM almost unuseable for real work.

huh? that ram is on the vga card, and it won't make any 4MB's unuseable.

>>>	GCC's executeable is about 1.8 meg.
>>sounds like you compiled it with -g and didn't strip it.
>>my gcc-cc1 is 477KB.

>Well.  I didn't see the -g option, but I did strip it.  What's the -g option?
>You always wanted to discuss UNIX, GNU, X-Windows, and i386's on the Amiga 
>news group...

-g puts debugging info into the binary, so a debugger can tell which
function is in what .c-file etc pepe. you'd better recompile
gcc *without* -g if you have less than 12MB ram.

especially programs with gazillions of symbols like gcc tend to get
huge if compiled with -g.

btw: coff machines can use cprs(1) to further reduce binary sizes.
-- 
      Heiko Blume <-+-> src at scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93
                    public source archive [HST V.42bis]:
        scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp
                     uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home