On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:41:42PM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote: [...] > > At one time we could boast that Linux could perform well on low-end > > hardware but such is no longer the case. Linux Likes RAM! As does any > > other OS out there. > > Sort of true. For a desktop, I think Linux is a bit hungrier than > Windows. [...]
I disagree. I still run Linux machines with GUI on 64MB and 48MB and the only Windows that could match the performance on those machines is Win95 and lower (even a fresh Win98 install started swapping wildly rather soon on those boxes). Linux gives me the choice to use a lean GUI that only provides the features I need. Windows does not give me that option and hence forces me to use bigger hardware for a desktop machine. IMO, if you want the same, bloated GUI feature set as you have in Windows, then yes, you might end up with higher memory use than Windows, as you have to use the likes of GNOME or KDE. On the other hand, if you need less options from a GUI, Linux (or in fact *any* *nix) gives you a lot more options than Windows does. Cheerio, Thomas -- ==> RH List Archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=redhat-list&r=1&w=2 <== ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Ribbrock http://www.ribbrock.org "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!" -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
