Richard said:
Of course Linux has become bloated. I remember when Linux came out
they said it would work on a 286 box with almost no RAM. What are the
current system specs?
Depends on what purposes. I have FC3 running on a p2 400 box I had
without ANY problems what so ever, though it's only really doing server
duties, I can go into Gnome or DKE with out any lag... in fact I'd say
it's faster then when I had RH 8 on it.
Thats more than anyone can say for Vista (XP, on the other hand, I have
on an old laptop with 300 mHz P2 & 256 MB ram, and at one time we had an
old P1 166 mHz with 128 MB ram running XP and while it wasn't the
quickest there, it ran rather well. Vista o nthe other hand, want 512 MB
min, though recommened 2 GB and a good multi core setup, JUST to make it
usable. I'm sorry.... but thats just WAY fatter then it needs to be.
The bigger difference with Linux and windows in general is, while Linux
has a very positive growth-to-speed ratio, Windows' always sees to be
going down with each new release, with Vista taing the cake, as it's
mroe bloated then ever, as well as slower, why many *nix distros get
FASTER in my expereince.
Linux grows the right way, not the sheer obesity that Vista displays.
Progress does NOT mean getting fatter. Growing in size and getting FAT
are two distinct things. Progress = efficiency, not getting bigger and
fatter because one simply feels the need.
I agree a slimmer OS (XP or 2003 are infinately slimmer than Vista will
ever be) OS on a dual or more core setup is a MUCH better choice for
anyone who wants real speed, not the feeling you're dragging an anchor
behind you.