Interesting article about "What Linux is doing wrong on the desktop"

[Scott]

On 05/05/2006 10:21 AM, * Lee Revell spake thusly:
> On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 21:33 -0400, Matt Galvin wrote:
>> On the
>> flip side the software is usually stable enough to not *require*
>> upgrades but the upgrades are made available every few months. Maybe
>> the OEM decision makers are missing some facts here. With new releases
>> every 6 moths there is certainly room for them grow and sell systems.
>>
> 
> I don't think it's stability that forces Linux users to upgrade, but
> bloat on the desktop, which is undeniably a problem.  Linux used to be
> the OS you could run on hardware that was too old to run Windows, and
> this is still true for servers, but I think for desktop use XP
> outperforms us on underpowered machines (I would draw the line around
> 1GHz).

I ran Fedora Core 2 and 3 on a 500Mhz Pentium III w/256 MB of RAM. I
used both GNOME and KDE.  I did this for a number of months until I
replaced that PC.  It was slow, but not much slower than Windows 2000
(which I dual booted on that computer).

I'd say that's the absolute minimum though.  I'd have probably run XFCE
if I'd realized how much faster it was.

Provided you're running the right Desktop Environment/Window Manager, I
don't see why you couldn't run Linux on a Pentium II w/128 MB of RAM
(GNOME and KDE would be out of the question, of course).

-- 
	Scott
www.angrykeyboarder.com
©2006 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved