On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Rob OpenSuSE <rob.opensuse.linux@googlemail.com> wrote:
Noone's asked for desktop to be optimised to 256MB RAM, it's the word "requirement" and 1GB figure that looked like a very bad idea to me. Precisely because of SOHO server applications, and least according to most Internet pundits "it will never be the year of Linux on the destkop" so we shouldn't forget non-GUI server side :)
I could care less about Linux on anyone else's desktop, so long as it works on mine. I gave up trying to enlighten people a long time ago. I just charge them to fix their broken WinDoZe now.
Firefox 3 seems to have beneffitted a lot from the work to reduce memory consumption. I've noticed it on a machine with 4GB RAM (despite having AMD dual channel non-FSB memory controller), and the result is much more pleasant, than the flabby feel of the older version.
I dunno. I do know that on my Thinkpad A22p with a P3/1Ghz and 256MB RAM, that Firefox takes up about 200MB after opening 1/2 a dozen tabs, and that I use about 200MB of my swap. And, the machine has a bad RAM slot. I'm going to try a 512MB chip at some point, but the machine is only supposed to support 256MB modules.
Years ago memory access on first micro I used, was 1 or 2 CPU cycles. Now we have new chips with L3 caches taking 45 cycles, and system memory a lot more (100+?); so the old "memory is cheap and fast" meme doesn't hold so well now, even though memory is cheap, and faster thand it used to be, compared to processing speed increase it has lagged.
Yeah, I've read about that. Adding the L3 isn't the boost that they've tried to make it out to be.
To me Qt4 & KDE4 don't seem to have blown up memory requirements. Firefox 3 is working with less. But I can only compare 10.3 requirements on i686 with 11.1, not 10.2 directly. So am I the only who wonders about an issue under Power arch, or simple configuration issues like desktop search, despite fact that 512MB RAM is clearly a more sensible system size than 256MB?
10.2 ran great on older PowerMacs with 256MB. 11.0 seemed to be slower, but it got better after an upgrade to 512MB. I actually have a gig in my 9600, but it's not being used right now. I have an old PowerBook 3400c that I finally upgraded to the max of 144MB, and a PowerMac 6500 with a max of 128MB. So, I don't expect these lower end systems to work(I wish I could get a PPC version of Damn Small....). However, my 9600 with a G4/700 and 1GB shouldn't be slower than my Dell Dual Xeon 500Mhz with 512MB. However, these old workhorses seem to be getting left behind by the major distros because of all the new "features" being added like the glitz and search tools and stuff. Search tools should NOT be enabled by default. I work at a computer shop, and I am constantly removing google search and all the others because they get install and NEVER used, and they slow the computers down. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org