Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
One reason for my question is that running Windows 98 or NT on 64MB RAM is quite common (and works OK)
i hope you mean NT4, cause i will guaruntee you, that your system will be sluggish as hell if your running 2k, or XP with that little ram ..the only window OSs that you will run with 64MB ram is win98 or earlier (you can included the very successful winME also ) ... but again you didn't state any other specs, but i will still guaruntee that 64 wont' cut it ..
but anyways, as of running KDE and GNOME, i would say if you tweaked your box up enough to handle it, and disable services, etc ... i think you could have no problem ... especially if you use one of those distros like redhat that start a bazillion services by default ....
but personally, and i know you didn't ask this, but if it really was me, and i had limited resources so to speak .... with only the 64MB of ram (unsure of other specs) i would just some lightweight window manager, and not worry about trying to tweak the box to handle KDE or GNOME ...
64 mb will fire up KDE or Gnome, but you'll spend you days in the swap partition. It'll thrash. I ran a box with 32 mb once when my 128mb stick developed errors. KDE fired up, but it was like molassas. You should hae 128 or more, just like 2000/XP want. 256 is better. RAM is your cheapest and most dramatic upgrade. Why no scrape up a few dollars and buy more (SDram and DDR sell here ised for CDN $20 for 64mb or $30 for 128). I'd pony up for the ram if you can. You'll be happier if you wanna run Gnome or KDE (Gnome will be a bit more responsive, I think). If you don't get more ram, choose Windowmaker, IceWM, or Fluxbox as your windowmanager
You can't compare KDE and Gnome to NTs GUI. They both are far more useful and powerful. If you compare IceWM, you'll be more on the same level (and it'll run faster and better than NT)
Last edited by vectordrake; 02-12-2004 at 08:19 AM.
I'll agree with vectordrake that these days, 128 is the typical low end. The difficulty with answering your question though is that the term "usable system" is subjective. If you don't mind waiting for long (or even very long) periods of time for your apps to load, etc, then maybe you could get some kind of minimal system working in 64M (dunno, never tried it myself) and therefore you might consider it usable. Other people though would not consider it usable if they had to wait 15 - 30 seconds for the system to respond.
Personally, I'd suggest a minimum of 128, with 256 being better. Memory is pretty inexpensive these days, with sticks of 128 going for under $30 and sticks of 256 going for about $50. Obviously everyone's budget is different, but I'd encourage you to go with boosting the memory if at all possible. The amount of time you'll save from *not* having to waste time waiting for your PC will be well worth the cost. -- J.W.