[Wolves] how low can Linux go?

[Kevanf1]

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:09:38 +0000, baza <baza at themauvezone.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> David Goodwin wrote:
> 
> > baza wrote:
> >
> >> As part of this community project I'm working on we want to install
> >> Linux (Ubuntu) on donated PC's. This is to save the Microsoft licence
> >> fee.
> >>
> >> An issue we need to work out is what is the MINIMUM speck Linux will
> >> run on, using Gnome? Most of the business donated PC's are running
> >> 64meg ram, which I figure is way to small. But to keep costs down we
> >> don't really want to have to convert them into 'Uber Boxs' to run Linux.
> >>
> >> So, what is the smallest hard drive and RAM we can get away with?
> >>
> >
> > A better question is how _slow_ can you afford for them to be?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 'Reasonable'.  The  performance  is  less  of  an  issue.  We  can,
> 'overclock'  them a  bit  too.
> 
> Baza
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wolves LUG mailing list
> Homepage: http://www.wolveslug.org.uk/
> Mailing list: Wolves at mailman.lug.org.uk
> Mailing list home: http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/wolves
> 
For what it is worth.  I have only recently upped my RAM to 256mb from
128mb on my Linux tin.  I have this in a PC running a 350mhz AMD k6 2
chip.  Prior to my 80gb drive upgrade it ran on a 6gb Quantum
Fireball.  Graphics card was a 4mb Matrox Millenium. I ran Suse 9.1
with full OOo, Firefox, full Mozilla suite, Scribus, both KDE and
Gnome installed - I used KDE together with quite a lot of other stuff
:-)  It was better with 256mb onboard but I was able to use it prior
to this upgrade quite happily.  This is in comparison to my other PC
which has a 2500 AMD Barton chip with 512mb of  RAM onboard.  So I'm
used to something a bit faster but not state of the art.

-- 
Take care.
Kevan Farmer

34 Hill Street
Cheslyn Hay
Staffordshire
WS6 7HR