Linked by Bob Marr on Thu 10th Jun 2004 05:48 UTC
Consider these memory requirements for Fedora Core 2, as specified by Red Hat: Minimum for graphical: 192MB and Recommended for graphical: 256MB Does that sound any alarm bells with you? 192MB minimum? I've been running Linux for five years (and am a huge supporter), and have plenty of experience with Windows, Mac OS X and others. And those numbers are shocking -- severely so. No other general-purpose OS in existence has such high requirements. Linux is getting very fat.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Running XP with less than 256MB of RAM (if you're going to do more than play solitaire) is a disk-thrashing nightmare. 512MB is comfortable.
Microsoft recommends 128MB minimum and claims that it'll run, albeit badly, with a mere 64. I'd rather use an abacas than try that. The point is, 256MB is really not so much considering XP was released in 2001 and FC2 was released in the middle of 2004, YEARS LATER. Why should an OS that has been evolving over the last three years (since XP was released) be expected to conform to the system requirements of an OS that's been out for years? Following that logic, the XP system requirements (which dwarfed 98's requirements, and came out roughly as far apart as XP and FC2) were just as horrible and alarming as this person seems to think Fedora's are.
I'm forced to wonder if this guy was clutching his Pentium 200 to his chest and screaming, "It's not fair! It's just not FAIR!" when XP came out ... I mean, that P200 Classic would run 98 just FINE, how DARE Microsoft make 300Mhz the recommended spec for XP!
Or maybe I just don't get it.