Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 Jul 1998 14:54:42 +0200 | From | Andrej Presern <> | Subject | Re: Memory Rusting Effect [re: Linux hostile to poverty] |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > In article <XFMail.980718123733.dbr@oto.dyn.ml.org>, > David B. Rees <dbr@oto.dyn.ml.org> wrote: > > > >This brings up another question... People have noted that 2.1.109 is much > >better on 8MB machines, but what about 4MB machines? Has anyone tried it? > >Maybe I'll give it a shot today and post my results... > > I'm actually officially going to suggest that if you have less than 16MB > RAM on your system, you're probably better off running 2.0.x than 2.2. > > Linux 1.0 used to run in 2MB (not well, but it ran), 1.2 already pretty > much required 4MB, 2.2 will pretty much require 8MB and 16MB preferred. > > Don't get me wrong - I'll make sure it works on an 8MB machine, but I > won't consider it a showstopper if it is noticeably slower than 2.0.x on > such a machine.
Windows have been there, done that. And people decided they didn't like it and went to Linux. History repeats?
Andrej
-- Andrej Presern, andrejp@luz.fe.uni-lj.si
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |