__/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Friday 12 January 2007 16:46 \__
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:46:20 +0000
> <2290679.UAutez2RMh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Ubuntu Goes Low Spec!
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Ubuntu Lite, by contrast, is said to work with 64MB of RAM, and if
>> | need be, it can even work with as little as 32MB of RAM. Considering
>> | the advantages demonstrated by other Lite Debian-based distributions,
>> | it could very well open up some doors for folks looking to make
>> | the switch, yet not possessing up to date hardware.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.madpenguin.org/cms/?m=show&id=7707
>
> Wake me when they get to 4 MB. :-) Not that there'd be
> much of a GUI, of course, but older Debian distros had
> no problem installing in 4 MB. Nowadays, the minimum
> they recommend is 14 MB. (Side note: 2048x2048x16M is
> 12 MB video ram, and 16 MB if they waste a byte per pel --
> or reserve a byte for alpha.)
>
> Contrast this to Vista's 512 MB -- according to
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905075.aspx
> anyway -- and 1 GB if one wants Windows Vista Premium Ready.
>
> Apples and oranges, certainly -- a Linux text console
> doesn't do 3D graphics very well! -- but one wonders how
> much of that 1 GB is truly needed, and how much is merely
> for "window dressing".
One ought to worry about CPU (or power in the case of hardware-level
processing) usage as well. Apart from many memory-related (or--goodness
forbid--swap) operations, there are many scrambling and unscrambling
operations going on (e.g. to secure "premium content"). IIRC, DRM in iPods
increases battery drainage by about 30-40%. I can't recall where I saw these
tests/benchmarks.
--
~~ Best regards
For governments that eavesdrop, here is a quick list of tags: Communism,
Hawaiian shirts, China, Suitcase, Martha Stewart, Encryption, Prison,
Stalin. Thanks for tuning in.
|
|
