On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:50:29AM +0200, Karolina Lindqvist wrote: > onsdagen den 9 april 2003 07.44 skrev Daniel Stone: > > 256mb of RAM is an irresponsible figure > > to be bandying around. > > Memory chips often comes in 128MB increments, don't they? Not to mention 64mb. > So the choice is between 128 or 256. Or 64. Or 96. > My recommendation is to get that 256. The > cost is not great nowadays. 128Mb is about the cost of one night out, so it > just means not going to that club one weekend and instead going to the > nearest shop for some RAM, and spend the evening putting it in, breaking your > nails and scratching your nuckles is the process. Umm, it's still about $au60-80; people often don't have that money to spare. My AthlonXP 2400+ is a direct upgrade from the PII 350, which I had for ages. 128mb, as I have repeatedly stated, works. I'll drag the PII back out to prove a point, in fact. Hell, it even works fine on my P233MMX laptop, complete with 48mb of RAM. Disable klipper, chown .ICE-unix, disable kwrited, disable kalarmd, and you've got an entirely usable system on a low-end machine. > One of my friends has 64MB on her windows-98 machine. That works, but is not > the greatest. My sister has 32mb. Again, works, but isn't the greatest. The point is that your figures of 256mb are extremely irresponsible, considering users respect you somewhat for your packaging, and I'd prefer you either checked your facts with a program you knew not to be incorrect, or just left it alone. It runs fine on anything from 64mb upwards, and even on 48mb, if you tune it a bit. -- Daniel Stone <daniel@raging.dropbear.id.au> <dstone@kde.org> KDE: Konquering a desktop near you - http://www.kde.org
Attachment:
pgpr1Gb8_bI83.pgp
Description: PGP signature