On Aug 15, 1:51 am, "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_st...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:45:25 +0100, bbgruff wrote:
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > As I recall, the "cheap" version of XP is only for use on machines which are
> > within a certain *maximum* specification.
> > IIRC one of those limits was "not more than 1GB of RAM"
That certainly puts a wrinkle in things. It means that they can jazz
up Linux versions with extra memory and storage (since they are saving
the cost of the OS), and at the same time, they can offer it with a
fully functional office suite, fully functional collaboration
applications, media players and educational software, and some not-so-
great games.
> 1GB is plenty for a decent XP machine.
> Maybe not having to pay for OS allowed them to toss an extra gig to the
> Linux machine.
Meanwhile, they have to pay for XP, Works (a really dumbed down
version of Office), and there are no extra games or educational
software. Not much, else.
And not much space on the limited flash storage to put lots of real
applications, free or commercial.
> In any case, having run both on the same machine, both will benefit from the
> extra memory.
I've run XP on a machine with 1 gigabyte of memory, and I've run Linux
on the ASUS EEE with only 512 megabytes of RAM. Linux seems to have
lots of head room even when I'm running several applications
concurrently. XP is plagued with fits, starts, hangs, pauses, and
poor response, even when there are only a few applications running.
> --
> Moshe Goldfarb
> Collector of soaps from around the globe.
> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
|
|
