On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:38:43 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] revealed these words to me:
<snip> > I thought that using linux had a smaller Ram fingerprint. Yet as for previous > posts people have recommended 500+.What happen to small, lean and compact. I > know linux can be powerful, but from this point it's seems to me, linux like > other things seem just demanding more. I mean what happen to slow processor > and low ram? > > Now can someone take what I just typed, make sense of it and throw me back on > track. I guess my troubles have tarnished my view on linux. > > > 500? Im running at LM8.1 at 128MB machines (At work and at home) and both machines are VERY usable and responsive. the ram requirements vary from distro to distro and what the user wants to load in it. you could run linux on old systems but dont expect to run latest software that require great resources by themselves alone (like KDE and GNOME). i know someone who have used Mandrake 8.0 using a P166 with 64MB. he can still use KDE but it's speed is relatively slow. slow processor and ram still cuts it but dont expect to get dazzled with pretty graphics and killer applications that munch cpu cycles for appetizers. put it this way, linux and RAM is like building a box to fill your goodies. you can build a small box using a small amount of cardboard/paper but the things you could put in it are rather limited. or you could build a very large box and use a lot of cardboard/paper. weird analogy but i hope you get my point. ciao! -- "Programming, an artform that fights back." ============================= Anuerin G. Diaz Design Engineer Millennium Software, Incorporated 2305 B West Tower, Philippines Stocks Exchange Center, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City Tel# 638-3070 loc. 72 Fax# 638-3079 =============================
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
