This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
RE: HW requirements
- From: "Erik Jessen" <ejessen at adelphia dot net>
- To: "'Jim Kingdon'" <kingdon at panix dot com>,<xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:33:56 -0800
- Subject: RE: HW requirements
Based on a few of the last emails, I heard:
a) 24MB is the min.
b) it's an unrealistic min.
So, is anybody even really considering HW resources when actually doing
development? (other than the general rule of "don't be wasteful")?
I'm just trying to understand the environment Xconq is living in - I
simply don't have any data - I do chip design for a living, not
software.
Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com
[mailto:xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com] On Behalf Of Jim Kingdon
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 7:44 PM
To: xconq7@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: HW requirements
> How many people use VT100 any more?
One posted to the list just recently.
To me the real questions are not so much "how many users (or potential
users) with this or that hardware/OS/etc" but "is anyone willing to
test xconq on such-and-such setup?" and "is there any benefit to
assuming more memory/cpu/whatever?". All too often (although
certainly not always) the answer to that last question turns out to be
"no", but one might only notice it when you've done some profiling
and/or other analysis about where the resources are going.