Re: 2.6 on a 133

From: Aaron Gray (aarongray_at_DELETETHIS.aarongray.org)
Date: 12/30/03 

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:59:19 -0000

> > Is 2.6 too big a beast to be installed on a 133Mhz PC ?
> >
> > Should you stick to 2.4 on such a machine ?
> >
> It's hard to say what's too big without knowing how much memory is in
> the PC.

So a 133Mhz machine would be fast enough ?

Whats the minimum memory required ?

The machines in question have about 48MB +

Aaron

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Approach to memorization
    ... a question of really knowing a piece, ... might appear fuzzy the muscle memory takes over. ... For example, when you see me quote something here, I ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: Approach to memorization
    ... a question of really knowing a piece, ... might appear fuzzy the muscle memory takes over. ... For example, when you see me quote something here, I ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: Shorts
    ... Wrt to memory of an event, ... of anaesthesia are identical: events are not registered. ... But there is something *particularly* creepy about knowing ...
    (soc.motss)
  • Re: Upload Images
    ... I guess as mentioned by tommaso, you can set the quality on the encoder ... but for knowing the reduced size ahead of time, ... or its scratch space or to memory to get the sizes. ... I tried to compress file ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.drawing)
  • Re: Irksome railway phraseology
    ... as late as the mid 70's, a 1 Megabyte mainframe was seriously top-of-range (with more than a million pounds worth of memory). ... based on a long tradition of knowing about it ... date rollover causes. ... about it but ignoring it continues. ...
    (uk.railway)