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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Sorry, saying that XP Pro needs at least 1G is simply not true. I was forced to use it on an old notebook (Thinkpad TP600) with 128MB and 233PII processor. It was not super fast, but definitely usable - with such applications as MS Office, Outlook etc. On my current machine (PIII 900 notebook with 256 MB) XP performance is better (the difference is not astounding but noticeable) than Fedora Core 2 (for the same applications - for example Firefox) - while running KDE, Gnome is much slower. And XP Pro is way faster at booting - 3-4 times faster in fact.
I must agree with the article author - but I also think that not only the speed is becoming a problem - general quality of applications is getting worse (perhaps because the apps are getting more complex - gone are days of simple, text-mode only apps not depending on complex libraries). The OS kernel is probably still more stable than - say - XP kernel, but I would say that the entire GNU/Linux OS (as perceived by a user - including desktop environment, applications etc.) is much less stable (speaking about "standard" distributions such as Fedora, Mandrake, Suse etc.) than Windows XP. And this is *very* frightening...