Text 22417, 53 rader
Skriven 2006-10-12 21:21:44 av Alan Zisman (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 22383 av ROBERT FOWLER (1:123/140)
Ärende: Vista anti-piracy
=========================
In article <24346$WIN95@JamNNTPd>,
 "ROBERT FOWLER -> ALAN ZISMAN" <1:123/140> wrote:

 -=>> ALAN ZISMAN wrote to ROBERT FOWLER <=-

 GM>>> Seems to me, that if a computer can run W9x (and this one
 GM>>> does, but not well), then it should likely be able to run
 GM>>> some flavor of *NIX?

 CA>>> No, not really. That's one of the myths that linux people
 CA>>> propagate but recent 'distros' of linux are as bloated and
 CA>>> processor hungry as Windows. Newer linux is intended to use a
 CA>>> GUI just as Windows has and suffers because of it.

 RF>>   That's funny, because I have no problem running any of the
 RF>>   "recent distros" on my PIII box, which BTW is inadequate for
 RF>>   XP SP2.  I'm curious which current distro (or any other OS
 RF>>   for that matter) rivals Vista for system resource requirements.

 AZ>> My experience suggests that recent Linux distributions are more
 AZ>> comparable to Windows 2000 than to XP-- in terms of hardware
 AZ>> requirements, but also in terms of hardware and multimedia support and
 AZ>> general look and feel.

 AZ>> I'm relatively happy with Windows 98SE on a 266 MHz system with 64 MB
 AZ>> of RAM... I wouldn't want to run either Win2000 or Ubuntu (for example)
 AZ>> on that system... but I would be content with either W2000 or Ubuntu
 AZ>> on, for example, a P-III-800MHz with 256 MB of RAM.

 RF>   My experience is similar to yours, but I would quickly point out that
 RF>   most of the distros that are discussed here are near the top of the
 RF>   scale with respect to functionality and hence system requirements.

 RF>   There are lots of other distros that are less demanding and obviously
 RF>   provide less functionality.  They do often well support older hardware.
 RF>   Sorry, if I've threatened any donations to your cause. ;-)

There are certainly light-weight Linux distros which will run acceptably
on older hardware-- but that's like noting that there are versions of
Windows that will run acceptably on 386, 486, or Pentium-75 systems.

Both are true-- we have some people here who write about being
productive using, say, Win 3.1 on 1 386. And I remember setting up an
old 486 Thinkpad (limited to 8 MB RAM) with Win 3.1, MS Office 6.0, and
a Win95-like replacement shell (Calmira); the users were very happy with
it-- aside from the lack of real-time spell checking and long filename
support, it looked and felt like a fast Win95 system.

But it's only a small minority of users who are now prepared to be
productive running Win3.1/95/98 OR (say) Puppy Linux on older hardware.

--- MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.1 (Intel Mac OS X)
 * Origin: Ad Hoc (1:123/789.0)