Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Thu 7th Aug 2008 17:25 UTC, submitted by SBW
Thread beginning with comment 326145
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by lollyn00b - XP is better?
by Almindor on Thu 7th Aug 2008 21:33
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lollyn00b - XP is better?"
Latest Ubuntu runs very well on 256 mb of RAM. Install is a bit "longer" tho.
On another note, did you hear the joke about Microsoft Windows Server 2008 and Debian?
Do you know what's the difference between the two? Debian runs on P100 with 32mb of RAM (and can provide quite a good router/firewall too).
RE[5]: Comment by lollyn00b - XP is better?
by Moredhas on Fri 8th Aug 2008 04:04
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lollyn00b - XP is better?"
Have you ever actually used linux, or are you just spouting mindless rhetoric? I have three computers in the house, two running Ubuntu, one running Mandriva. One of the machines using Ubuntu is running quite well with 128MB of RAM, thanks to the lightweight desktop environment xfce. If not for a couple of small annoyances with how xfce works, I'd be using it on all of my computers.
RE[6]: Comment by lollyn00b - XP is better?
by Imp of the Perverse on Fri 8th Aug 2008 21:10
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lollyn00b - XP is better?"
RE[5]: Comment by lollyn00b - try Damn Small
by jabbotts on Fri 8th Aug 2008 13:52
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lollyn00b - XP is better?"






Member since:
2008-07-27
Yes, almost as painful as trying to run OS X or any modern Linux distro in under 512MB of RAM.