Linked by Bob Marr on Thu 10th Jun 2004 05:48 UTC
Linux 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.
I also disagree
by Brad Griffith on Thu 10th Jun 2004 07:52 UTC

Up until about a year ago, I had a friend set up on a PII 300Mhz with 192MB of RAM. Unfortunately the harddrive died, but when the machine was still alive it ran SUSE 8.2 and subsequently Fedora Core 1 very well. This was with KDE in SUSE 8.2 and GNOME in Fedora Core 1. The machine ran very well. It was left on for a whole semester basically. My friend wrote papers, chatted, browsed the web - even did some basic GIMPing - very comfortably. I don't think that 300Mhz with 192MB of RAM is outrageous for a distribution made in 2003. On my computer right now (which is a very nice computer, AMD 2600+, 512MB of RAM, 7200RPM harddrive), I have FC2 with GNOME 2.6. I have eight virtual desktops filled to the gills with applications - including the GIMP, OpenOffice, Inkscape (several windows with 1.5MB SVGs in them), Scribus, Epiphany, Gaim, gedit, Evolution, Muine, shiny Crystal icons, Straw, and about a dozen Nautilus windows. I can flip through the virtual desktops as quickly as I want and not feel a bit of slowdown. When in XP, however, clicking the start menu typically results in a 3-4 second wait, subsequently hovering over "All Programs" causes another long wait, and opening more than 4-5 programs brings the system to its knees and an inevitable crash. Linux makes me far more productive.