WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?  (Read 1945 times)

Offline NoMoreNoLess

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
« on: January 06, 2011, 08:32:58 AM »
Hi TCL folks,

TCL is a great accomplishment!  Cramming a fully functional OS into 10MB just astounds me.  And booting just to ram none the less.

I am curious if there are any other OS projects with a GUI, linux or non-linux based that come close to the footprint of TCL, past or present?

The only thing I can think of is Window 3.1, which came on 6 floppies (~8.64MB).

Thanks,
NMNL

Offline jls

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2011, 08:44:04 AM »
kolibrios
dCore user

Offline NoMoreNoLess

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2011, 09:39:15 AM »
Assembly?!  That is insane.

Offline tinypoodle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3857
Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2011, 01:40:45 PM »
There have been dozens of Linux distros bootable from floppy into a ramdisk, but such is not really supported anymore starting with kernel 2.6.

e.g. cramdisk and tomsrtbt are still historical references though.

Also I could remember having had geexbox on a CD around 8MB.

ELKS and menuetOS (of which I think upper mentioned kolibrios is a fork of) wouldn't even manage to fill all space of a floppy... (and did I mention that one could get 3D graphics from a 1200KB OS?).

P.S.: debatable if what resides in a path like C:\PROGRAMS\WINDOWS\ could be called an OS...

"Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster." Niklaus Wirth - A Plea for Lean Software (1995)

Offline NoMoreNoLess

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2011, 08:04:58 PM »
Curious as to why one would not consider the contents of C:/... an operating system?

Offline tinypoodle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3857
Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2011, 11:21:55 PM »
I think as you are misquoting me, therefore you wouldn't or couldn't understand what I meant to imply.

When it comes to Windows 3.1, \WINDOWS\ would just be one amongst many (optional) folders within the \PROGRAMS\ folder of a DOS operating system.

Also one would boot DOS, but (optionally) run Windows 3.1 (as a program).
"Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster." Niklaus Wirth - A Plea for Lean Software (1995)

Offline Guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2011, 11:31:22 PM »
Most other small operating systems are lacking functions.
Many people see what is. Some people see what can be, and make a difference.

Offline beerstein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2011, 03:10:34 AM »
Hi: If you are looking for competition to TC you have to search a lot.
We had the floppy disk linuxes for a long time.
Then AUSTRUMI 2.1.7 is compact but not as powerful as TC
There is SLITAZ from switzerland which is compact (50 MB) but has a different philosophy and look at theit forum. I do not like it at all.

The TC forum is outstanding with a lot of activity every day.

I am glad to have Tiny Core and now I am not looking any further. There is nothing out there what can touch
this system. ( Especially when it comes to size and flexibility) Our primary goal should be to really
understand the "philisophy" behind this piece of work and . The more I work with TC the more
facinated I get.

I hope this post is not to much off topic. But I think TC is a revolution. For 2011 I hope to to get a new ANDROID Smart-Pad_Phone (all in one) with a free partition to run my personal TinyCore on it.

t(w)o be(ers) or not t(w)o be(ers) that is the question

Offline tinypoodle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3857
Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2011, 11:45:23 AM »
For 2011 I hope to to get a new ANDROID Smart-Pad_Phone (all in one) with a free partition to run my personal TinyCore on it.

Doubtful that would be x86, so TC as of now could not work on it.
"Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster." Niklaus Wirth - A Plea for Lean Software (1995)

Offline NoMoreNoLess

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2011, 03:09:04 PM »
I think as you are misquoting me, therefore you wouldn't or couldn't understand what I meant to imply.

When it comes to Windows 3.1, \WINDOWS\ would just be one amongst many (optional) folders within the \PROGRAMS\ folder of a DOS operating system.

Also one would boot DOS, but (optionally) run Windows 3.1 (as a program).

Gotcha.  It's been so long, I had not even considered the DOS + Windows 3.1 combo.

Offline NoMoreNoLess

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Competition for TCL footprint, past and present?
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2011, 03:12:21 PM »
Our primary goal should be to really
understand the "philisophy" behind this piece of work and . The more I work with TC the more
facinated I get.


I am fairly new to TCL and OSes with fairly small footprints.

May I ask, what are the "core" philosophical differences, in your own words, behind SliTaz and TCL?