Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st May 2009 13:27 UTC
Windows Along with the release of the Windows 7 release candidate came new system requirements for Microsoft's next operating system. This updated set of requirements has been declared final, making them the official system requirements for Windows 7 final. Seeing Microsoft's rather... Dubious past dealings with minimum system requirements, let's take a look at Windows 7's.
Thread beginning with comment 361309
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

You can get a functional Linux desktop out of 512MB on a Linux machine with some careful software choices and no Firefox/OO.o

Don't lie. I have myself two computers running complete GNOME desktops, one has 256MB RAM and the other has 512MB, and hell, I have Apache, FireFox and web-development utilities running all the time on the latter one. There was absolutely no reason to carefully select software.. I just installed the freaking default GNOME desktop on Mandriva.

So, to say "other modern OS's run very nice"on 512MB is simply not true. It requires lots of work (Linux)

What you are saying simply is not true. I have several computers proving you incorrect.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, so far, whenever I ran any modern Linux distribution on 512MB it hasn't been an optimal experience. Especially Firefox and OpenOffice are notoire memory suckers, and launching a few tabs in FF or a few docs in OOo would bring it all to a screeching halt. Bring in something like Flash...

I personally wouldn't recommend a default Ubuntu or similar distribution installation if they have a <1GB system.

However, as always, mileage may vary ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 1

TheIdiotThatIsMe Member since:
2006-06-17

I was going to bitch and complain about this, as my full blown Ubuntu running several apps right now and Compiz only uses around 400MB. Then I realized, I don't use Firefox. Or OpenOffice.org

Oops.

I think part of the problem also is whether you have a dedicated or shared graphics. I used to run Ubuntu on a laptop with 512 with compiz on, and yes, there were times it slowed down quite a bit, but then on a very similarly spec'd desktop with the only difference being a dedicated card, and have never had any speed issues.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I personally wouldn't recommend a default Ubuntu or similar distribution installation if they have a <1GB system.

I've already covered the single user case in a previous post, which is admittedly more relevant to this discussion.

But I'll also go ahead and mention that I find that 200MB per user on a Gnome XDMCP/NX server running x86_64 gets me pretty good results. 60 users => 12GB. Running 32 bit, 150MB/user is more then adequate. The workload is the typical Epiphany/Evolution/OpenOffice/Evince/etc affair one would expect in an office. Plus about a hundred sessions of an ncurses/Cobol based accounting package. And some other odd lot stuff.

NX sessions do use significantly more memory than regular XDMCP sessions, and typically about 70% of my sessions are NX. Running straight XDMCP on a LAN the requirements would be significantly less.

Edited 2009-05-01 22:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I can't say about Ubuntu, haven't touched it for years now. But I am a heavy FireFox-user, I always have a minimum of 4 tabs open, usually way more when I'm doing web-development. And I do it all on the 512MB box. I haven't bothered tweaking the thing anything more than disabled Beagle because I don't use it, everything else is on default settings.

Maybe you should try some other distro.

Reply Parent Score: 2