On Monday 07 July 2003 10:46, Derek Fountain wrote:
Put more RAM in the machines, 128 is not enough for a good result.
Lots of people have said that now. Am I the only one who finds it disturbing? It's a dual boot machine which works quite acceptably under Windows, but apparently needs more memory to get decent performance under Linux.
Didn't it always used to be the other way round?
Needs more to get the desired performance if you want to use it as a graphical desktop, I suppose is what I meant - and their machines work acceptably for 3 year old Windows. KDE 1 didn't need the extra RAM, and you could get the speed up in other ways, e.g. using blackbox, fluxbox, or a dozen other WMs. I was running 7.3 very nicely on 128MB RAM, and I'm sure 8.2 will run nicely on it as well. I just got the impression the enquirer wanted a nice flashy graphical desktop, and for the 20 quid he'd have to spend I think doubling the physical RAM would give him the best bang for buck. I don't think it's that unfair to model the default install of a 2003 Linux distro on presumptions of 2003 entry level hardware, particularly as you can so easily cut back on the RAM and other hardware requirements in the many ways people have outlined. Best Fergus
-- "...our desktop is falling behind stability-wise and feature wise to KDE ...when I went to Mexico in December to the facility where we launched gnome, they had all switched to KDE3." - Miguel de Icaza, March 2003
-- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB Tel: +44 161 834 7961 Fax: +44 161 839 5797 http://www.chethams.org.uk