From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Fri Jan 15 01:09:51 2010 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kk7ZUwNvU/2Ps3yOqwz5rJarrm0mNmp34nTtF8NvOaM=; b=AWIMpvLupNfPA0066iDab0T3AsLuHMxIw1nkLReRBNNrXRFbC6Nqc0RBw5A61iK4m4 PxShk7pgPxY0wsSz2gKu/hA2X8Nx/Kv8O7icC78tJKLcK5vdsQ31oaYh9/LGnxjs3tNf 7LaDCrZRAFIdUv9u0vO937YgwoXdHi7IvvyyM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=oald89VdXaxgIKmPV9HzYoFSiyPimDkRVyrKKEjZRGV2knvlrqzhAQK+70tA9vQJZe 3EEuOuKYE3XVRrY95iWluIZV6mCV6rn3cKr2NePs0cIrAhF8n/g4HtUt0RPTiKasjur8 Tww41KJka5y7VKyaWA7izA3DIDTx7npvjbfMQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <4da966f01001131059h616973c3uda0adf12102ccbd9@mail.gmail.com> <1263424689.16683.4290.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <201001140031.37425.jflemaire@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:07:37 -0600 Message-ID: <11a6f2b11001142207q64526c5j3101c5c33f9cd364@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [MiNT] Installing on a MegaSTE From: Paul Wratt To: mint Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: paul.wratt@gmail.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.sparemint.org id o0F69oij032287 On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Helmut Karlowski wrote: > Am 14.01.2010, 00:31 Uhr, schrieb J. F. Lemaire : > >>> O.k. I'll dig into why this is the case. >> >> Is ~1MB for MiNT considered much? I would have thought it's pretty >> reasonable. > > Yes, but it's more, and if you want run MiNT+XaAES on a 4MB-machine, the OS > should not take more than 50%. I don't know what the ST_ONLY-version of > XaAES needs. > > If Alan would find something not really  needed - why not? > > -Helmut > the ST_ONLY binaries will be smaller, I can say by how much, but the memory usage will be down because it does not use textures anywhere. An ST_ONLY build running in mono might be the smallest possible configuration as far as memory goes if you get that XaAES extended texture patch applied to ALL the repos, or to main trunk, then I can modify the Gradients patch to allow total removal of any non-essential graphics stuff This would save a lot of memory usage and a small amount(?) of binary usage. As far as code usage, and memory usage because of that, I had already looked at being able to turn off (even not compile) with the 3D drawings, and with the possibly replacing the widget resources, using plain/traditional chars instead, you end up with a traditional GEM interface, allowing for XaAES to run in (or be compiled into) Lite mode. Theoretically with the above combined, a XaAES Lite could use as little as 200Kb.. Paul