Re: debian
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:35:55PM -0700, John Sunderhaus wrote:
>
> In order to graphically see that Linux *looks better* and *performs
> better* than Windoze, you *must* have the following:
>
> Tons of memory - I'd say at the very minimum, 256MB.
> A graphics card that can do a color depth of 24bpp or better
> A monitor (CRT) that can do 30-95 HZ horizontally and 50-160 HZ
> vertically.
>
> As far as I am concerned, if your equipment can't do the above, then
> getting a Linux desktop running X to outperform Windoze is an
> impossible mission - and a waste of time. You are better off running
> Windoze.
I'm sad you think so. 64 MB is about where I draw the line, simply for
apt updates. 16 bit displays work just fine for most people. Couple
that with a 300Mhz processor and things should be fairly smooth for most
people. Heck I even had a few P166s with 32 Megs that I ran X on for a
while. It's all a matter of the applications you run. Sure, Gnome or
KDE would bring the P166 to it's knees. So, I didn't run either on it.
Instead I used Blackbox (which I still use on my 2 Ghz machine).
> I don't have expensive equipment. My implementation of Debian is
> running on a home-built Pentium II 400, with an ATI Rage 128 graphics
> card with 8MB of on board memory (as I recall, thats about a $60 card).
Maybe when it was purchased, but now a GeForce4 MX with 64 Meg can be
had for ~$40.
> I just don't see how its physically possible to install Linux on a
> machine with less than 256MB and a nameless monitor and find happiness
> - unless you like working at the command prompt.
Until about 6 months ago, the average specs for my main systems in the
house were ~128 Megs RAM and ~750 Mhz Processor. I agree that 256 Megs
of RAM make things much smoother, but it is by no means necessary. All
the laptops in the house (there are 3) have no more than 128 Megs each
and no better than 600 Mhz processors, yet they run Linux with X just
fine.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Reply to: