Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sun 3rd Sep 2006 12:29 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 158453
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The video: not impressive at all
by Kroc on Sun 3rd Sep 2006 14:02
in reply to "The video: not impressive at all"
'If you search for the evidence you want, you will find it; even if it is not there.'
I'm in agreement that the user is only demonstrating what they want to see. This same task could easily be executed in Mac OS and Windows with 1GB of RAM. If the user wanted to proove at least something, the same task would be repeated in 256 & 512MB RAM and the differences measured.
This is rather poor editing from OSNews.
RE: The video: not impressive at all
by segedunum on Sun 3rd Sep 2006 18:08
in reply to "The video: not impressive at all"






Member since:
2005-10-31
First of all, 1GB of RAM is a heck of a lot of RAM. It would only be strange if a machine with all that RAM couldn't handle a reasonably sized workload. Second, the vast majority of the applications are only small teeny weeny games which do not need many resources. The only reasonably apps which I noticed were loaded were OpenOffice (the resource hog by definition) and the GIMP and both apps load up rather nicely on Ubuntu 6.06 with 512MB RAM. Third, the video only shows someone open each and every app from the menu. It doesn't show any of those apps being used or even the user switching between those apps.
So in the end that video shows nothing. I mean, really. The user opened a big pile of applications and didn't worked on any of them. What is there to see? I'm a huge Ubuntu fanboy but hey, let's keep thing in perspective, shall we?
Edited 2006-09-03 13:23