Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Well, before switching to linux, I've heard several times that Linux's system requirements are often lower than windows. I dont understand this. For example, Fedora Core 4 or SuSE 10.0 ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12

    Why say linux dont require powerful systems?


    Well, before switching to linux, I've heard several times that Linux's system requirements are often lower than windows. I dont understand this.
    For example, Fedora Core 4 or SuSE 10.0 require at least 128MB of RAM, 256MB reccomended, while Windows XP can work fairly with 128MB. My computer is Celeron 667, 256MB of RAM and most of the time i run applications in SuSE 10.0 quite slowly. In Windows, at start up, my free memory is around 110MB, but in SUSE running KDE, it is 10MB, more or less. Even when i run iceWM, a GUI known to be quite "light", it's only 50MB of RAM that is free. Anyway, is this a silly comparison because Windows XP was published in 2001, while FC4 and SUSE10 in 2005?

  2. #2
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by MrShameless88
    For example, Fedora Core 4 or SuSE 10.0 require at least 128MB of RAM, 256MB reccomended, while Windows XP can work fairly with 128MB.
    I'd be *very* surprised to see a usable install of Windows XP on 128MB of RAM. In my experience in order to run anything other than Notepad you need at least 512MB.

    My computer is Celeron 667, 256MB of RAM and most of the time i run applications in SuSE 10.0 quite slowly.
    The problem with your argument is that there is only one desktop environment for XP, whereas Linux has many, which use more or less system resources depending on how you configure them. SuSE uses KDE, which requires more RAM to run than another desktop might, such as XFce, IceWM, or Fluxbox.

    In Windows, at start up, my free memory is around 110MB, but in SUSE running KDE, it is 10MB, more or less.
    Linux handles RAM differently than Windows. In Windows, your RAM is used as it is needed, leaving large chunks of it unused at any given time. In Linux, most of your RAM is cached whether it's being used or not. This means that when you do need it the RAM can be filled more quickly. This also means that it will *seem* to a Windows user that Linux uses more RAM when it really does not necessarily.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  3. #3
    Linux User DThor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ca..na...daaa....
    Posts
    319
    Also, the overall mem management in Windows is absolutely awful compared to Linux. Stuff gets swapped out to the pagefile if Windows decides "you don't need that anymore". Linux is smarter, or perhaps more accurately, not trying to be as smart.

    Mem management is one of the big reasons we use linux only here. I do agree, however, that recent desktop releases such as SUSE, Ubuntu and others can gobble up memory, but certainly it's not as bad as Windows. As TM sez, no way it's practical to run Windows in 128M. With Linux at least you have the *option* to run a low-footprint window manager, or in fact none at all if you want.

    DT

  4. #4
    Super Moderator devils casper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Chandigarh, India
    Posts
    24,729
    Quote Originally Posted by techieMoe
    I'd be *very* surprised to see a usable install of Windows XP on 128MB of RAM. In my experience in order to run anything other than Notepad you need at least 512MB.
    nope... Windows Xp works fine at 256 MB RAM ... all applications...everything... BUT have too many problems... its worthless to discuss windows problems here.....

    regarding speed in Linux... well !! it depends on distros..and programs you installed....
    e.g. in Fedora Core... there are a lot of services runs in background which a normal linux user dont need and never use...
    "anacron", "apmd", "atd", "avahi-daemon" "bluetooth", "cpuspeed", "cups", "cups-config-daemon", "mdmonitor", "nfslock", "rpcgssd", "rpcidmapd", and "sendmail"
    if you stop these services... speed increases a lot !!




    casper
    It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.
    New Users: Read This First

  5. #5
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by devils_casper
    nope... Windows Xp works fine at 256 MB RAM ... all applications...everything... BUT have too many problems... its worthless to discuss windows problems here.....
    As I said, in my experience. Yours may vary. But you're right; it's silly to debate the merits/demerits of MS Windows here.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  6. #6
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    123
    Try a more lightweight distro and WM. I run Arch Linx and Openbox and receive great performance from my computer. There are probably even more lightweight combinations (say, DSL, I had that running X on a 16MB machine, albeit terribly).

  7. #7
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    The Hot Humid South
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by MrShameless88
    Even when i run iceWM, a GUI known to be quite "light", it's only 50MB of RAM that is free.
    I find this very hard to believe, specially if you have 256MB of RAM. One of my desktop computers has XFCE (which as far as I know is more intensive than IceWM since it's desktop environment and not just a window manager) and I have plent of memory left afte initial boot with just 128MB of RAM installed (startup use is 33MB... that includes XFCE, GAIM, and adesklets). Keep in mind, because of reasons already explained before in this thread, once you start opening and closing program it'll seem like your free RAM disappears due to caching.
    "Today you are freer than ever to do what you want, provided you can pay for it!" --Bad Religion

  8. #8
    Linux User IsaacKuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    Posts
    405
    I run IceWM just fine on my old 120mhz Pentium system with 48megs of RAM. Firefox is sluggish...but usable. This is with Debian 3.1.
    Isaac Kuo, ICQ 29055726 or Yahoo mechdan

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •