Off-Topic > Off-Topic - The Funnies

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED !!

<< < (2/3) > >>

Rich:
Hi polikuo

--- Quote from: polikuo on August 24, 2017, 10:02:53 AM ---Yep, you read it right.
Elapsed time: 30 seconds  :o just for a line of Hello World!
--- End quote ---
To be fair, if you're compiling, the elapsed time of the first run is typically slower than any subsequent runs. I'll put numbers
behind that statement with a quote by myself from an old thread:

--- Quote from: Rich on May 28, 2011, 03:57:05 AM ---[ ... SNIP ... ] I've also seen it suggested to run cache-clear periodically in the background
to boost the reported amount of free memory, this is a bad idea. To demonstrate, the program I am
currently working on takes 2 seconds to compile. After running cache-clear it takes 10 seconds to
compile, and if I compile it again it's back to 2 seconds. It runs faster because the memory manager
is keeping the most recently used data in RAM. [ ... SNIP ... ]
--- End quote ---
Of course there is the possibility that with your memory constraints there isn't enough RAM to cache anything long enough
to be of use later on. ::)

polikuo:

--- Quote from: Rich on August 24, 2017, 01:59:57 PM ---Hi polikuo

--- Quote from: polikuo on August 24, 2017, 10:02:53 AM ---Yep, you read it right.
Elapsed time: 30 seconds  :o just for a line of Hello World!
--- End quote ---
To be fair, if you're compiling, the elapsed time of the first run is typically slower than any subsequent runs. I'll put numbers
behind that statement with a quote by myself from an old thread:

--- Quote from: Rich on May 28, 2011, 03:57:05 AM ---[ ... SNIP ... ] I've also seen it suggested to run cache-clear periodically in the background
to boost the reported amount of free memory, this is a bad idea. To demonstrate, the program I am
currently working on takes 2 seconds to compile. After running cache-clear it takes 10 seconds to
compile, and if I compile it again it's back to 2 seconds. It runs faster because the memory manager
is keeping the most recently used data in RAM. [ ... SNIP ... ]
--- End quote ---
Of course there is the possibility that with your memory constraints there isn't enough RAM to cache anything long enough
to be of use later on. ::)

--- End quote ---

Actually, the first time I built hello.c, it took only 15 seconds.
I forgot to take a picture so I re-run gcc for photographing.
Noticing the time had changed, I kept retrying.
The more I do, the slower it gets, until it reaches 30 seconds.
I believe it's due to the swapping process, the hard drive rattles when I compile.
Guess there really isn't enough RAM to cache anything long enough.  ::)

PDP-8:
Then again, I wonder how long it would take to compile hello.c on say the typical workstations of yesteryear, like the Sun 3/80 pizzabox for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-3

Or maybe even a NeXT box! etc etc.

From that perspective, your machine would be the ultimate dream.  I'd hang on to it and stop laughing at it. :) :)

andyj:
I have a K6-300 I booted it on a few weeks ago so I could clean off the disks before I recycle it. I didn't try the GUI, but downloading hdparm and e2fsprogs was easy enough. The problem with old computers isn't booting an OS, it's POSTing because the CMOS batteries are all dead.

gadget42:
if you enjoyed this dusty old thread then you might also check this one out:

https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,3216.0.html

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page