Lazarus Long wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 26, 1999 at 15:12:52 -0500, Kent West wrote: > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > X-UIDL: 4fd6d8ff3805df00b5ee9a38be13cbf6 > > > > > Ya know, we really oughtta quit advertising the idea that Linux runs > well > > > > on 486's with low memory and drive resources.... > > > Guess I should have specified "as a workstation client". > > Perhaps you were NOT speaking tongue-in-cheek. :( > > I refer you to what I wrote previously, adding that I am writing this > ON a 486dx33, as a "workstation" I suppose you would call it, since it > is not a server. > > Linux is an affordable workstation, as compared to other OS's. >
Oh definitely! And I am philosophically in favor of OSS (and opposed particularly to Microsoft), and do not mean to imply that Windows is better (not by a LONG shot). But before I ever downloaded my first base14-1.bin image or read my first HowTo, I had read in several places that Linux works well on older hardware. Not realizing that the authors presumably meant as servers, I was disappointed with my first go-round of Linux as a desktop OS on an old 486 with 16MB RAM. Windows and Netscape were functional on such a machine; Linux was just barely so. It may have been inadequate tuning on my part, but remember, I was brand new to Linux and didn't know an exim.conf file from an XF86Setup program. So in summary, I'm not saying we shouldn't advertise Linux as running well on older slower machines; I am saying that we should qualify that claim to the effect that the average newbie can't expect the same performance they're used to if they try to do the same types of things they've been doing with Windows on an older slower machine. PS: I'm not trying to start a flame war; this is just my perception.
