4 ms·

Yeah I keep hearing this too, but it's not accurate now and probably hasn't for some time. I run Gnome/Debian on a Toshiba Laptop Satellite 1600 with 384 Mb of

Yeah I keep hearing this too, but it's not accurate now and probably hasn't for some time. I run Gnome/Debian on a Toshiba Laptop Satellite 1600 with 384 Mb of SDRam with Gnome running and Chromium WebBrowser v10, HTop shows 267/384 Mb being used. This is with Gnome/Metacity. With Gnome/Openbox it's even less.

acqq 16y ago
On my 256 MB notebook I wasn't able to install Ubuntu with Gnome. I could be that 384 MB is enough, as I had better luck with 512 MB computer. As far as I know Windows XP can install on 64 MB, that's six times less than 384 MB.
- ido 16y ago
  Yes, but practically how many of us use a computer with 64mb of ram (or even 256mb)? Also, if you're ok with installing an older version of windows there is nothing stopping you from installing an older distribution of linux (I used linux on a 100Mhz Pentium with 16mb ram just fine back in the day).
  - acqq 16y ago
    > there is nothing stopping you from installing an older distribution of linux We argument here if Gnome needs "too much" memory so that you need a relatively new computer to use it, and I gave the arguments for that, narrowing down the amount of memory needed and comparing it with still very useful and widely used XP.
    - ido 16y ago
      Yes, but a debian version from several years ago (with gnome!) is also still very useful and would probably not demand more resources than xp. The question was - why is it legitimate in this argument to use an old version of windows but nut an old version of linux?
      - acqq 16y ago
        > why is it legitimate in this argument to use an old version of windows but nut an old version of linux Again, please don't change the topic, we are talking about Gnome, not about Linux in general. Linux kernel runs on my router with 16 MB RAM without any problems. Gnome is simply made without enough attention for configurations with limited resources, it's just so. There are other managers, of course. That's why huertanix mentioned XFCE. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_d... Footprints (at the time of the writing): GNOME: ~180 MB, Xfce: ~15 MB
- badwetter 16y ago
  Should have tried Debian; they have an optional text based installer that probably would have enabled you to complete the install.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - acqq 16y ago
    Ubuntu has the text based installer too. But still Gnome is simply not a good choice for a 256 MB computer -- the footprint of it is just too big. Luckily there are other offers.

acqq 16y ago

On my 256 MB notebook I wasn't able to install Ubuntu with Gnome. I could be that 384 MB is enough, as I had better luck with 512 MB computer. As far as I know Windows XP can install on 64 MB, that's six times less than 384 MB.

ido 16y ago
Yes, but practically how many of us use a computer with 64mb of ram (or even 256mb)? Also, if you're ok with installing an older version of windows there is nothing stopping you from installing an older distribution of linux (I used linux on a 100Mhz Pentium with 16mb ram just fine back in the day).
- acqq 16y ago
  > there is nothing stopping you from installing an older distribution of linux We argument here if Gnome needs "too much" memory so that you need a relatively new computer to use it, and I gave the arguments for that, narrowing down the amount of memory needed and comparing it with still very useful and widely used XP.
  - ido 16y ago
    Yes, but a debian version from several years ago (with gnome!) is also still very useful and would probably not demand more resources than xp. The question was - why is it legitimate in this argument to use an old version of windows but nut an old version of linux?
    - acqq 16y ago
      > why is it legitimate in this argument to use an old version of windows but nut an old version of linux Again, please don't change the topic, we are talking about Gnome, not about Linux in general. Linux kernel runs on my router with 16 MB RAM without any problems. Gnome is simply made without enough attention for configurations with limited resources, it's just so. There are other managers, of course. That's why huertanix mentioned XFCE. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_d... Footprints (at the time of the writing): GNOME: ~180 MB, Xfce: ~15 MB
badwetter 16y ago
Should have tried Debian; they have an optional text based installer that probably would have enabled you to complete the install.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- acqq 16y ago
  Ubuntu has the text based installer too. But still Gnome is simply not a good choice for a 256 MB computer -- the footprint of it is just too big. Luckily there are other offers.