Re: Memory Usage - KDE - Where is discussion on this?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 02:10:20PM -0800, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> and that's when I grumble :) But the point someone made about the
> comparision with Win95 remains valid.. Webbrowser, Email Client, (except
> maybe outlook :) running on a freshly booted machine can run on less hardware
> than the current KDE, albeit all the added advantages that the current KDE
> might have, at the end user level, there would definetly be a comparison
> made, and I would hate for the word 'bloated' to ever get associated to Linux
> in the press :) Of course, now comparing to an XP requirements might be more
> fair. But getting slightly off-topic..
Comparing KDE 3.1 (plus Debian and the various daemons) to a operating
system that is 7 years old isn't exactly fair. Otherwise why not compare
it to something like MacOS 7, which if I remember correctly used much
less ram than even Win95. On the other hand a more current operating
system such as WinXP takes anywhere from 64MB-96MB on boot up (no other
apps running).
Chris
Reply to: