4 ms·
If people really use computers with less than a gigabyte of RAM and a CPU slower than a single gigahertz, they will surely not be happy with a modern Linux dist
by llarsson 7y ago
If people really use computers with less than a gigabyte of RAM and a CPU slower than a single gigahertz, they will surely not be happy with a modern Linux distro either.
I am surprised that Windows 10 would have so low minimum requirements!
- jolmg 7y ago> they will surely not be happy with a modern Linux distro either. Depends on what modern Linux distro you're talking about. In fact, probably any can run with much less. It all depends on how they're configured. I'm running Archlinux on a Raspberry Pi Zero. It's using 38.9M of its RAM right now.
- vector_spaces 7y agoI've found Alpine, AntiX, and SliTaZ Linux to be pretty snappy even on ancient machines with specs on that order of magnitude. AntiX works the best out of the box of those 3 IMO, but the other two are fine if all you want is light browsing, word processing, or servers. There's also the Puppy Linux family and FatDog & friends which (by default) run from RAM but still provide persistence. LXLE is another good distro for slightly better machines (ie >=1.5 ghz, >2gb RAM).
- downtide 7y agoI remember we were running Win XP and Server 2000 pre-millenium. We were donated a Win 3.1 machine, and were astounded how fast it booted. Or rather it's all rather relative. Win 10 was pared down for phone use, and the energy tweaks were welcome.
- zozbot234 7y agoEven a very modern Debian GNU/Linux still runs tolerably well on lower specs than these. Just pick a lightweight desktop environment, and expect to set up some swap space if you're on 512MB only. Of course the requirements of something like Alpine are a lot lower, but it's kinda hard to describe that as a general-purpose distro.
- barbs 7y agoIn the past I've used Xubuntu on older computers with great success, and Lubuntu on even older computers.