Welcome to Geeklog, Anonymous Thursday, March 27 2025 @ 12:10 am EDT

Comments for Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog? | 14 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: vbgunz on Monday, April 07 2003 @ 06:19 pm EDT

Thank you both for your input. I am somewhat in love with SuSe and am curious. If I put it on another box what would be equivalent to a 1.2 Athlon w/ 512RAM without the 1.2 Athlon w/512RAM?

What I mean is if IBM can run it on a wris*censored*ch what would be the mininum specs that can match what I currently run?

300 Celeron, 128 RAM?
450 P2, 64 RAM?

Thanks :)

---
Victor B. Gonzalez

---
Victor B. Gonzalez -
http://aeonserv.com

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Tuesday, April 08 2003 @ 04:46 am EDT

Linux can be configured to run on very modest hardware. The IBM wrist watch example is probably taking it to the extreme.

Most modern Linux distributions won't install with less than 32MB RAM. Disk usage really depends on how much software you install but several hundred megabytes isn't uncommon.

As far as CPU goes, power is cheap these days and faster always helps but you can expect decent interactive performance over an encrypted link with a 500MHz, or faster, CPU.

I use both FreeBSD and Debian GNU/Linux. My systems generally have 256MB of RAM and software RAID-1 mirrored disks. The CPUs are 500MHz to 800MHz and they work just fine.

Search

Resources

About

Getting started

Support

Development

Topics

User Functions

What's New

Articles last 4 weeks

Comments last 4 weeks

Pages last 4 weeks

Links last 4 weeks

Downloads last 4 weeks