On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:44, T. Ribbrock wrote: > 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.
Yes, but you've also removed yourself from the mainstream Linux destop. While choice is certainly an important aspect of Linux, it's also a bit misleading to compare something that most users will never see with Windows. If we're going to talk GUI's on Linux we should stick with GNOME and KDE for the sake of comparison. The people who know how to install alternate desktops aren't the people interested in comparisons: they already know. > 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, And this is indeed what your average user (especially those coming from Windows) wants. Regards, -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
