On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 08:02:39PM +0000, Bruce Cran wrote: > On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:09:34 -0700 > Chip Camden <sterl...@camdensoftware.com> wrote: > > > Yes, I would recommend that configuration also, because FreeBSD is > > much more lightweight of the two, so you don't impose the overhead of > > running Windows when all you need is FreeBSD. > > I'm not sure that's true, actually. FreeBSD by itself may be a lot more > lightweight than Windows but once you add in Xorg and KDE I think it > needs about the same, if not more, memory. People will argue that you > don't have to run KDE or GNOME but as can be seen from the success of > Ubuntu people like complete desktop environments.
Well, there's your problem -- you're using Windows Lite (KDE). Anyway, it appears to be fairly reliably reported that KDE and (especially now) GNOME still run lighter than the whole MS Windows GUI, even if they're much heavier than other options. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgp6D3xoJmzGp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
