🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vjj06$b27@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> rkswamy@eos.ncsu.edu (Ravi Krishna Swamy) writes:

>In article <ericb.450.301CECDB@psu.edu>, ericb@psu.edu (Eric Bennett) writes:
>>In article <danpop.807144468@rscernix> Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>
>>>In <ericb.437.301BD9B0@psu.edu> ericb@psu.edu (Eric Bennett) writes:
>>
>>>>I would like to have the chance to use X sometime.  The two people I know who 
>>>>run Linux have 4 and 8 megs of RAM respectivley, and both have 386s.  Not 
>>>>good for running X :(
>>
>>>Pretty good for running X.  My notebook has 8 megs too and has been 
>>>running X for the last two years without any problems.
>>
>>Certainly not the 4 meg machine.  The guy with 8 does have X installed, but he 
>>can't run more than one or two X programs without bogging down with swapping.

>What do you expect?  Does he run all of M$ Office without swapping?  Heck
>Word 6.0 alone would probably make it swap.  I'm never run Linux+X on
>a 8 mb machine but I've got friends who do.  Both of my Linux boxes have
>16 mb ram.

It's exactly what I expect.  And he doesn't have Windows on his machine, so he 
doesn't run office at all.

I am not expressing surprise that you can't run X with lots of X apps in 8 
megs of RAM, I am just explaining why I have never been able to use X 
myself--I don't know anyone with a machine capable of running X well.

-Ericb@psu.edu