On Sunday 06 July 2003 11:30, expatriate wrote: I have Linux running on four computers from my desktop 1.8XP and 768meg, down to an old P120, 32Meg Toshiba laptop. They all run fine. KDE is impossible on the P120 but ICEwm runs very well. More RAM defiantly makes a difference. I run SuSE 8.2 on two different Dell laptops. The first is a PIII 500 with 512Meg. This is faster that the PIII 1.2 and 256Meg, certainly in terms of window redraws. As others have said, you can get setup that runs well on any hardware with a bit of experimentation and tweaking. That said why change? M$ probably peaked at W2K anything since appears to be a down hill move. If you have to though following a bit of pain you will be free of the treadmill once and for all. I have been following the OOo.org lists and the next version should be faster and speed seems to be an area of focus at the moment. Nick
Hello My wife is considering "upgrading" all of her company's PCs to Linux instead of continuing on the Microsoft wagon. In order to test the impact on the average user, she requested I convert her home machine to dual-boot so she could experience the issues. Her home machine is an ASUS P2BF with a Pentium III 450MHz , 128MB RAM , 120GB 7200rpm IBM HD (33MHz ATA though on the Motherboard) and a Diamond Viper V770 (NVidia2 TNT2). I chose KDE since I have many niggling issues with GNOME. Her first impressions so far are: "It is slower to boot" "It does not start up applications as quickly as W2K" (OpenOffice definitely loads more slowly than Office2000) "Repaints take longer" (When shifting windows around)
Mind you, she has an MSEE and is definitely not a Microsoft drone having studied UNIX in college. However, she is concerned that her organisation will have trouble adapting to a ""less responsive" OS on the older machines that are now running Windows 97 and 2000.
Does anyone have a different experience?
TIA & cheers