13 Dec
2001
13 Dec
'01
5:49 p.m.
Ben Franchuk wrote:
dmc!njc(a)ns2.ezwind.net wrote:
> This is something I get hit with on a daily basis. On the one hand I need
> to have better than 64M for Windows!?! But my PIC projects barely need the
> 1024 bytes of ROM/128 bytes of RAM. I often wonder if 16M of RAM will be
> enough for my VAX to run. Then I realize that it's not a Windows machine
> and I'm happy again. :-)
Remember Linux too needs lots of memory. With >16
meg on a video card
your OS needs about 16x that. It is the video display that is the
killer.
I have Linux running on many boxes and they don't need a lot of memory.
The RedHat 7.x install requires I use a lot of memory but most of my
lab boxes are 16M and a 540M disk. They're just servers. The only
reason I've upgrade from 32M to 64 to 384M was Mozilla is such a pig.
But I do like the fact that I can compile the kernel and use X to surf
the net without hitting swap (memory was cheap enough to allow the cost).
I don't remember how much memory is on the video board anymore.
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry(a)home.net
http://members.home.net/ncherry (Text only)
http://linuxha.sourceforge.net/ (SourceForge)
http://hcs.sourceforge.net/ (HCS II)