"DFS" <nospam@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>
>>> I run KDE (SUSE 9.3) with just 256 MB or RAM. Most of the time, only
>>> three quarters of the RAM is being used. No disk space either (I
>>> always see the meters at the bottom).
>>
>> Wow. Linux is using magical pixie dust memory now. Is there nothing it
>> cant do? I bet your 20048x1640 desktop only uses 16k in 24 bit depth
>> too.
>
> Go out in the real world (ie away from cola) and you get the truth:
>
> http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7324
>
COLA have "special Linux" where they dont actually do anything which
needs RAM. But for those who only follow Roytoy's links, heres an
extract:
,----
| Sigh. What could I do? I knew from my own experience that XP with Office
| and IE is snappier and lighter on memory than GNOME/KDE with OOo and
| Moz/Firefox, so I couldn't deny the problem. I couldn't tell him to
| switch to Fluxbox, Dillo and AbiWord, as those apps wouldn't provide him
| with what he needs. And I couldn't tell him to grudgingly install
| Slackware, Debian or Gentoo; they may run a bit faster, but they're not
| really suitable for newcomers.
|
|
| Now, I'm not saying that modern desktop distros should work on a 286
| with 1MB of RAM, or anything like that. I'm just being realistic -- they
| should still run decently on hardware that's a mere three years old,
| like my friend's machine. If he has to buy more RAM, upgrade his CPU or
| even buy a whole new PC just to run desktop Linux adequately, how are we
| any better than Microsoft?
`----
--
|
|
