Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 7th Jan 2006 18:50 UTC
The study described in the following article was done by Mirosoft, so run to the kitchen and get some grains of salt. "Microsoft's Linux and open-source lab on the Redmond campus has been running some interesting tests of late, one of which was looking at how well the latest Windows client software runs on legacy hardware in comparison to its Linux competitors. The tests, which found that Windows performed as well as Linux on legacy hardware when installed and run out-of-the-box, were done in part to give Microsoft the data it needed to effectively "put to rest the myth that Linux can run on anything." Do with the results as you please, but the topic is interesting nonetheless. What are your experiences?
Thread beginning with comment 82853
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.
Member since:2006-01-04
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-10-02
I would say 768 if you want to run applications reasonably fast. Especially with MSN, ICQ, Skype, K-Meleon (or another browser preloaded), firewall, antivirus running in the background. This takes around 340-360 MB of RAM. And if you need some major application to run, without a lot of trashing happening when switching to another application, then somewhere around 768 MB of RAM is needed. 1024 MB is better.
I have 512 MB ram right now, because one of my memory modules decided to die, and Windows 2003 Server trashes a lot more now. Gnome has also become somewhat slower, but luckily not as much. Well, getting the main menu to show can sometimes be rather adventurous