On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 21:48, James McKenzie wrote:
> Scot L. Harris wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 17:35, akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >
> > Any system today with just 128M of memory is going to run slow
> > regardless of if it is Linux or Windows. On top of that the OP is
> > running Linux in a virtual machine which has its own over head added to
> > the mix. In such an environment the OP should consider running without
> > a window manager and many of the other optional packages that Fedora
> > comes with. However I doubt that is what he is looking for.
> >
> Why have such high requirements? This is called "Bloat" and could be
> intolerable. What if I want to install Linux on a 'minimal' system?
> Some folks out there cannot afford a new system every couple of years
> and some folks feel it is a waste to place into the trash system their
> old systems. Sure, you can recycle, but why buy a new system just to
> keep up with your Operating System?
>
High requirements?
>From the release notes again:
Memory Requirements
This section lists the memory required to install Fedora Core 3.
* Minimum for text-mode: 64MB
* Minimum for graphical: 192MB
* Recommended for graphical: 256MB
You can run linux in a minimal system. You just won't run graphical
front ends and a lot of the other programs that come with linux.
As to keeping your older system running, use an older OS on it that does
not have all the new features of the latest kernels and packages. No
one is telling you to trash your computer every few years. But there
are certain minimums that are documented. As to the bloat question,
that can become a problem. Like dovecot recently pulling in the mysql
and postgresql packages. That was corrected very quickly by the way.
Other bloat occurs because the developers are trying to get linux to
work with virtually every piece of equipment out there. There is some
price to pay for being able to do that.
> > The OP might find dual booting works better since that would eliminate
> > the overhead of running in a virtual system. Additional memory is also
> > recommended as that will most likely improve the response times
> > greatly. After that the user would need to run some reproducible
> > benchmarks against different parts of the system to track down where the
> > performance bottle neck is located.
> >
> I agree and I do this. However, what if the OP does not want to
> reconfigure his system or does not know how?
>
The the OP has two choices, he can run one of the live CD versions or he
accepts that an OS run in a virtual machine that has minimal memory will
be dog slow when trying to run graphical window systems.
Some times you just have to accept the facts as they are. Whining about
it on the mailing list is not going to solve the problem.
> >>From the release notes:
> >
> > I have found that 256MB is marginal and prefer systems with at least
> > 512MB of memory if you plan on running any serious applications. 128MB
> > system trying to run a graphical interface is not recommended even in
> > the release notes.
> >
> I run FC3 on a system that has 384MB of Ram, but if I desire, I can
> reconfigure it to 128MB. And I should be able to run LINUX on that system.
>
You can run linux on a 128MB system. No one said you could not. Would
you be happy with the overall performance in a graphical environment?
Probably not. Would it work just fine in text only mode. Yes it
probably would. It all depends on what you want to run on top of the OS
and how you want to use the system.
> > I suspect Windows has similar memory requirements as well.
> >
> Depends on which version you want to run. Windows98SE "only" requires
> 32MB of memory. However, WindowsXP has almost the same requirements as FC3.
>
Sure, and I ran a fully multitasking graphical window environment in
256K (note that is K not M) of memory on my Amiga 1000 many many years
ago. At the time nothing could touch it. Not even DOS systems with 5
times that memory. Lets try to at least compare things that are at
about the same level. :)
A Windows ME system I set up a number of years ago was really slow. As
soon as I bumped the memory up from 128MB to 384MB it worked just fine.
That was the only change.
> I feel, like some other folks, that FC3 is loosing its memory advantage
> to Windows. However, LINUX is very configurable and can and does run on
> memory constrained systems. We need to keep LINUXs memory profile low
> so that it can be run on memory constrained systems.
>
You are correct, linux will run on systems with very little memory. I
suspect all those linksys routers have 64MB in them and linux runs just
fine on those. But then again you are not running Gnome and gimp and
few dozen other applications on it either.
> --
> James McKenzie
--
Scot L. Harris
webid@xxxxxxxxxx
The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood
of bean counters.
-- Alan Kay
