|
|
| Author |
Message |
rob294
Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 6
|
 Posted: 02/25/10 - 11:15 Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hi there. Regarding system resources, I believe that both file systems are behaving more faster with more additional ram memory. But, I have heard that Linux really uses at least some minor amount of ram in order to run properly, comparing with Windows where 256 is just not enough to run comfortably. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
kort
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: 03/06/10 - 18:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| It is true that Linux can run with only 64 MB of ram by relying on the additional hard disk swap space, but that 's not even close to the comfort of any kind. Random Access memory is much more faster than the hard disk drive. But, if you have old computer with slower CPU, it is definitely better to install some weird Vector Linux distribution, than to try to run Win XP. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mart
Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: 03/16/10 - 01:55 Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey, who says that Windows can't run on the machine with 64MB of ram only? It does can, but that's pain in the gut. It will run like a slug and not recommended. Have you ever heard about Puppy linux? That's the lightweight champion, and requires only 50 MB of hard disk space, yikes! Can run on 16 MB of ram, like Win 98 and supports all latest hardware, well, at least 90% of the latest hardware.... |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
