On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 07:25:15AM +0200, M. Fioretti wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 11:08:44 at 11:08:44AM -0400, William Hooper (whooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > >> I think it intersting that the hardware requirements for this release > > >> are somewhat lower than for RH 9. Any thoughts on this? > > > > > > Tighter code (fewer patches)? Dropped apps or features? Typo? ;-) > > > > > > dmc > > > > More likely the result of the installer (anaconda) changes. Red Hat > > itself can run on lower spec machines, but the installer drives the > > "minimum requirements" (see the RULE project). > > > > Well, RULE indeed proved exactly that point. Thanks to Michael Fratoni > for slinky (8 MB of RAM) and the kdrive RPMs, see the RULE website. > That would be a good theory but in my machine which already has RH 9 installed (no anaconda involved at this point) the machine barely operates with 128M of RAM and only works in a minimally acceptable way with 256M of RAM. It is a 500MHZ Pentium III with everything installed. On the other hand at home my Pentium II , 500 MHZ with only the things I really need installed (but I have both Gnome and KDE various servers, etc.) runs fairly well with 128M of Memory. It's a mystery. If someone has an idea what hidden programs run when you install everything that slow down the machine significantly please let me know. -- ------------------------------------------- Aaron Konstam Computer Science Trinity University 715 Stadium Dr. San Antonio, TX 78212-7200 telephone: (210)-999-7484 email:akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxx -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
