On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:01:04AM -0500, Mark Browne wrote: > OK, X-windows is a resource pig. > What else am I going to do to run a GUI on Linux? > (see comment on running out of the box above) X is not that much of a resource hog. I run X on several 486s and 586s without problems (my main box at home is a 200 Mhz pentium with 256 MB RAM). As others have said, with RAM so cheap you might want to consider adding some ( I just a 128 MB stick free after rebate), but 64 MB of RAM is fine, as long as you're willing to make compromises - that's as much or more than I have on a couple of boxes. > I don't see a lot of difference using Gnome. > I will not recommend FWM to newbies, even if faster. > They will not feel that it is something better. > I am not going to switch people over to a text based system, no mater how > well it runs SAMBA or Apache. No need to go text based by a long shot. For window managers take a look a Window Maker. Pretty, functionall, and easy to configure, without being bloated. I use it everywhere (586's and on Sparc Solaris) except on 486's. KDE and Gnome are over-kill for most people anyway. > Despite the bashing and crashing - for a lot of the folks I support- windows > does just install and work. > The default apps and setting are pretty reasonable. > Windows does a fair job of tying all the little bits together for a nice > responsive system. > Sure they cheat - they don't have to do a modular system - they don't have > to. Well, newer versions of Windows and Office won't run worth anything on the hardware that you mentioned either. Similarly, on Linux Mozilla is probably too much of a resource hog, but Netscape 4.7 should be OK. Star Office will run OK, but hog a lot of memory. Others can give better info on the more modular office apps, I don't really use them except to read MS attachments that people send me. As for Windows default installs, they don't have nearly as much available as a default Linux install. Text editors like Wordpad and Textedit and no spreadsheet? Now if you are calling a default install the stuff than some manufactures bundle ( MS Home Office or whatever) then they are comparable. > Does it really come down to admitting that windows is really better for > Joe-six-pack consumer computers? > I hope not. I don't think so, but to run Linux you do have to be willing to learn things that are different than Windows. I think that distros like Progeny and Mandrake do a decent job of making it work for newbies. Installation can be a drag, but how many people ever install (or even upgrade) Windows or MacOS on their computers? -- Jim Crumley | crumley at fields.space.umn.edu | Work: 612 624-6804 or -0378 |