←back to thread

Tiny Core Linux: a 23 MB Linux distro with graphical desktop

(www.tinycorelinux.net)
518 points LorenDB | 6 comments | 06 Dec 25 14:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
trollbridge ◴[06 Dec 25 15:15 UTC] No.46173936[source]▶
Not to disrespect this, but it used to be entirely normal to have a GUI environment on a machine with 2MB of RAM and a 40MB disk.

Or 128K of ram and 400 kb disk for that matter.

replies(10): >>46173975 #>>46174032 #>>46174138 #>>46174272 #>>46174291 #>>46174522 #>>46174810 #>>46174831 #>>46179105 #>>46179554 #
maccard ◴[06 Dec 25 15:26 UTC] No.46174032[source]▶
A single 1920x1080 framebuffer (which is a low resolution monitor in 2025 IMO) is 2MB. Add any compositing into the mix for multi window displays and it literally doesn’t fit in memory.
replies(8): >>46174159 #>>46174187 #>>46174618 #>>46174766 #>>46176381 #>>46178650 #>>46179683 #>>46182290 #
1. snek_case ◴[06 Dec 25 16:38 UTC] No.46174618[source]▶
I had a 386 PC with 4MB of RAM when I was a kid, and it ran Windows 3.1 with a GUI, but that also had a VGA display at 640x480, and only 16-bit color (4 bits per pixel). So 153,600 bytes for the frame buffer.
replies(2): >>46174630 #>>46178683 #
2. Dwedit ◴[06 Dec 25 16:40 UTC] No.46174630[source]▶
640 * 480 / 2 = 150KB for a classic 16-color VGA screen.
3. perching_aix ◴[07 Dec 25 02:38 UTC] No.46178683[source]▶
> and only 16-bit color (4 bits per pixel).

The "high color" (16 bit) mode was 5:6:5 bits per channel, so 16 bits per pixel.

> So 153,600 bytes for the frame buffer.

And so you're looking at 614.4 KB (600 KiB) instead.

replies(1): >>46181007 #
4. snek_case ◴[07 Dec 25 11:36 UTC] No.46181007[source]▶
"Windows 3.1 primarily used palette-based color modes, common modes included 16 colors (VGA/EGA) and 256 colors (SuperVGA)"
replies(1): >>46181122 #
5. perching_aix ◴[07 Dec 25 11:58 UTC] No.46181122{3}[source]▶
Right, so 16 color, not 16 bit color.

To be frank, I wasn't aware such a mode was a thing, but it makes sense.

replies(1): >>46184560 #
6. mananaysiempre ◴[07 Dec 25 19:54 UTC] No.46184560{4}[source]▶
I recently installed NT4 (including Plus!) in an emulator with a VESA video driver, and was greatly surprised when about half of the icons that I thought of as “Windows 2000” (including the memorable “My Computer” one with the bulbous sky-blue screen) turned out to be available even there, provided a non-indexed mode. The rest were the more familliar 16-color-compatible 95/NT4 ones, making for an incongruous result overall. I guess what I want to say is that 16-color compatibility is a large part of the 95/NT4 look from which 2000 very carefully departed.