Tips for installing windows and freeBSD both.. anyone??
sterling at camdensoftware.com
Sat Nov 6 22:54:53 UTC 2010
Quoth Chad Perrin on Saturday, 06 November 2010:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 08:02:39PM +0000, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:09:34 -0700
> > Chip Camden <sterling at camdensoftware.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, I would recommend that configuration also, because FreeBSD is
> > > much more lightweight of the two, so you don't impose the overhead of
> > > running Windows when all you need is FreeBSD.
> > I'm not sure that's true, actually. FreeBSD by itself may be a lot more
> > lightweight than Windows but once you add in Xorg and KDE I think it
> > needs about the same, if not more, memory. People will argue that you
> > don't have to run KDE or GNOME but as can be seen from the success of
> > Ubuntu people like complete desktop environments.
> Well, there's your problem -- you're using Windows Lite (KDE).
> Anyway, it appears to be fairly reliably reported that KDE and
> (especially now) GNOME still run lighter than the whole MS Windows GUI,
> even if they're much heavier than other options.
> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
I'm using FBSD xith Xorg sans KDE or GNOME quite productively. And with
everything running that I normally need, I use less than 1GB out of the
4GB available -- less than 300MB on boot. Windows 7 wants the a whole GB
just to start up, or it's painfully slow. Actually, it's painfully slow
anyway -- and furthermore it imposes that pain on guest OSes as well.
What does KDE or GNOME buy you anyway? Besides overhead.
Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterling at camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F
http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com | http://chipsquips.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20101106/38f92eae/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions