On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 10:55:57AM -0400, Matt Morgan wrote: > On 08/11/2004 10:20 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote: > > > >The statement that you need 192MB for graphics is nonsense. > > > > > > > [snip] > > It's the installer that's more demanding. There are a lot of reports of > people getting FC1 and 2 to run with graphics on low memory. But the > installer requires 192Mb for a graphical install--which is what Craig said. What Craig actually said was "it won't load," which is ambiguous. It could be interpreted to mean "it won't install" or "X won't run after install" or any number of other things. For the record I have a system running a K6-3 400MHz with 64 megs of RAM. I did a graphical install of FC1 and upgraded to FC2 with the graphical installer. I'd say 192 megs is comfortable to run a GUI, but definitely not necessary to install.
