[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Computerbank] kde vs gnome, rh vs debian

On Thursday 01 January 1970 09:29, you wrote:

> Low end machines
> - generally if a machine meets our current minimum
> hardware specs for GUI installs then Gnome will usually be useable -
> not quick, but useable. The critical thing here is memory - I have run
> GNOME on a 586 with 16MB RAM and then with 48MB RAM and the difference
> is significant enough to allow an upgrade from Netscape 3.x to Netscape
> 4.x. 32MB seems to be the minimum acceptable for useable performance
> using GNOME, don't know about KDE (yet). The question then becomes - do
> we rigorously enforce our minimum specs for recipient machines ? Also,
> there
> seem to be a couple of gotchas going forward.
> Hope this helps,
> Cheers,
> David H.

David (et al),

kde vs gnome:
we are finding MINIMUM 48 mb ram for kde 2...
32mb just so slow for users:(

having said that, i would argue passionately FOR kde as opposed to gnome, due 
to the ease of use for low end users - especially those who have encountered 

staroffice 6 beta is looking good - no more annoying greedy desktop - will be 
testing over upcoming months:)

on the rh vs debian front:
rh is definitely easier for single installs - and while we are hearing a lot 
about vics easy network debian install, we get various and sometimes 
conflicting information on it - and none of the docs we have been pointed to 
help alleviate that!!

we have setup an nfs server, and we are fuddering around, trying to work out 
a good method for any linux distro - FAI looks good:

but all the methods suggested seem to be happier with the boxen all being the 

i think these issues will all be well debated wed night, 8:30 est, on irc...

me - i use debian & enlightenment;)))
romana@timelady.com icq no:393293 

Computerbank Australia -  SA branch coordinator 

"Between the idea and the reality, 
Between the motion and the act, 
Falls the Shadow..." 
(TS Eliot) 
computerbank mailing list