On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> Joshua Jackson wrote:
> > Alexander Skwar wrote:
> >> Why? If he isn't even using the 128 Megs he allocated, what good should
> >> it do to allocate >= 256 MB as you suggest?
> >
> > The old-school way of configuring swap space was, if I remember
> > correctly, twice as much as you have physical RAM. Now, that does seem
> > pointless in todays RAM-happy computers. There are probably many people
> > that still do it, habitually.
>
> For some people, 128MB is awfully tight. For others, ``640MB ought to be
> enough RAM for anybody.'' Did I say that? (-:
>
> In other words, 128MB may be plenty for you but another user may habitually
> have 200MB of stuff in use at any one time.
>
> I have 128MB of RAM really used, plus 25MB out of 85MB of swap used. I have
> StarOffice, Netscape Communicator, licq and two xterms open, plus am
> running Apache, BIND, PostgreSQL and a few other services. For me, 128MB is
> enough, but not excessive at all. When I upgrade this machine disk from
> Mandrake-7.1-ish to 7.2-ish, I'll bump the swap up to about 200MB to give
> myself some headroom.
I've 256 M RAM and I also need swap ....
I work with 17 virtual screen under windows kmail , 10 konquerors , 7 shells
, kde control panel , 5 vim , licq , xmms and few other prog .... but no
problem linux handle them corectly for a lot of time since I 'm doesn't like
to reboot my computer is up for a week know ...
I've tried all windows including 2001 they start to run out of mem after 3-4
days of works .... the best 7 day (of my style of work) .
the only problem in linux is the lack of support and the peoples we ALL need
to blames is HARDWARE CONSTRUCTOR .
you ALL that need drivers or support NEED TO tell the about releasing there
spec and to help to make them .
Other problems is the proprietary codecs , suck.... I doesn't like this .
