Recommened system requirements Ubuntu - XP Vista

[u.b.u.n.t.u]

Hi,

This is more a curiosity thing. I have surfed and compiled this information. Do you think this is accurate?

I view minimum requirements as little more than booting up an operating system. I have Ubuntu installed on my study box, 1Ghz AMD CPU, 393 MB RAM, 10 GB HDD and 80 GB for data. It is really beautiful.

Before I was running XP for a short time (I only recently built the box) and that was good. Yet Ubuntu is definitely faster and more exciting and fun for me.

In terms of recommended requirements, is the following accurate as a measureable comparision?

Recommended requirements

Ubuntu desktop install
100 MHz CPU
128 MB RAM
1 GB HDD

Windows XP desktop install
300 MHz CPU
128 MB RAM
1.5 GB HDD

Windows Vista desktop install
1 GHz CPU
1 GB RAM
15 GB HDD (at least 40BG HDD in total)

[niviche]

Ubuntu desktop install
100 MHz CPU
128 MB RAM
1 GB HDD

Windows XP desktop install
300 MHz CPU
128 MB RAM
1.5 GB HDD

Windows Vista desktop install
1 GHz CPU
1 GB RAM
15 GB HDD (at least 40BG HDD in total)

This has been discussed here:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=179193

It seems that Vista's minimum is 512mb of Ram, not 1 GB.

Has anybody here run a successful installation of Ubuntu on 128 MB (and actually done anything with it)?

[intarweb]

Ubuntu desktop install
100 MHz CPU
128 MB RAM
1 GB HDD


This will run super-slow. GNOME will be a frustrating experience, swap is going to go crazy. Not really accurate. 100 MHz CPU for Breezy? Are we talking just booting to a virtual console or actually loading a modern desktop environment?



Windows XP desktop install
300 MHz CPU
128 MB RAM
1.5 GB HDD


I'd say you need at least 256 MB to have a convenient XP desktop. Even then, it'll be slow and you might need to disable all those fancy animations.



Windows Vista desktop install
1 GHz CPU
1 GB RAM
15 GB HDD (at least 40BG HDD in total)
[/quote]

I don't know how accurate this is, but it is true that anyone who has the money to buy a spanking new PC won't really care whether his spiffy new Vista takes up almost half of his hard-drive. Most people won't care actually. It has always been the case, that faster system speeds lead to heavier programs and vice versa.

BTW, whoever comes up with that 100 MHz statement about Ubuntu is crazy. I'd rather run Windows 98SE, on anything below 500 MHz than Ubuntu. Or Puppy Linux (if you don't care for a seamless interface).

[gingermark]

Has anybody here run a successful installation of Ubuntu on 128 MB (and actually done anything with it)?
I ran Ubuntu Warty & Hoary and Kubuntu Hoary & Breezy on an 800MHz Celeron with 128MB RAM.

It worked reasonably well, although if I left it for long periods of time and then came back to it, it was super slow.

And Konqueror struggled to start sometimes.

I switched to Window Maker for a bit, and that worked very well, and I used to bounce between that and KDE.

[mcduck]

I have a AMD K6-2@500MHz, with 120MB of RAM (128, but the integrated graphics card takes 8MB), and it's running Dapper with XFCE4 and works just fine. Even Gnome was usable, altough fairly slow. So the 128 MB minimum for Ubuntu desktop is indeed correct. (anyway, 512-1024 MB is where Gnome starts to fly)

I wouldn't even bother trying XP with 128MB, 256 might work, 512MB is OK. 1GB or more and it works fine ;)

Memory recommendations for Vista are just talk until it's released, and even then I'm not planning to try it so I might not be best person to speculate this, but based on Microsofts recommendatios foir their previous versions, and the amount of RAM needed in reality, itn would be around 2-4GB :D Probably 1GB might be enough if you don't need all the eyecandy..

[u.b.u.n.t.u]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. :-D

[u.b.u.n.t.u]

niviche a minmum isn't really an acceptable experience though I would think. So 1GB is what people would face and not 512MB.

[u.b.u.n.t.u]

intarweb I have that Vista info from M$, their Vista webpage on this topic. I am just unsure about the Ubuntu and XP.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx

[rejser]

But with ubuntu you can choose to run xfvm or something similar. Then 100mhz is almost enough.

[intarweb]

But with ubuntu you can choose to run xfvm or something similar. Then 100mhz is almost enough.
That's what I'm saying. If you choose to not run either GNOME or KDE, than you could install WindowMaker or fluxbox, both of which are very fast window managers.

[niviche]

But you can you "do" anything on an Ubuntu with 128 Mg? Would OpenOffice or anything of the kind actually run correcly?



niviche a minmum isn't really an acceptable experience though I would think.


Same thing for Vista and for Ubuntu, then. :)

[u.b.u.n.t.u]

Vista requirements seem insanely steep. In 1 year, Ubuntu will still need the "same" requirements but M$ users will need a system 2 or 3 times as powerful to do basically the same thing if they want to move from XP to Vista. So time is definitely on the side of Ubuntu with uptake. Dapper is great for me and to think it will only get better and the requirements will still be the "same" is fantastic.

I need to talk to my friends in terms of XP and Vista requirements and that they can keep using XP but they need to layout $ for a new box to run Vista. XP is how many years old and here is Ubuntu, new, and released every 6 months. It is a very compelling argument. Even against OSX in my view.

[intarweb]

Vista requirements seem insanely steep. In 1 year, Ubuntu will still need the "same" requirements but M$ users will need a system 2 or 3 times as powerful to do basically the same thing if they want to move from XP to Vista.
In the meantime, those users will have actually used the same OS since the first day, while Ubuntu users will have endlesly fiddled around with their setups and countless reinstalls (to make things "clean"), all the way from Hoary to Dapper.

It's a whole different model of how upgrades work, in the same way that the KDE version that came with SuSE 7.3 (back in 2001) did not have the same requirements as the latest KDE version, but progressively got heavier and people who had in the meantime bought faster machines to use for games under Windows XP, never realized that KDE got so much more bloated (and featureful), because they had already bought a faster machine for other purposes.

Try running KDE on a 233 MHz Pentium II...

[helpme]

In the meantime, those users will have actually used the same OS since the first day, while Ubuntu users will have endlesly fiddled around with their setups and countless reinstalls (to make things "clean"), all the way from Hoary to Dapper.

Hm, i must do something wrong then, as I don't reinstall and don't fiddle, but just use Dapper?
Any hint on what I did wrong?



It's a whole different model of how upgrades work, in the same way that the KDE version that came with SuSE 7.3 (back in 2001) did not have the same requirements as the latest KDE version, but progressively got heavier and people who had in the meantime bought faster machines to use for games under Windows XP, never realized that KDE got so much more bloated (and featureful), because they had already bought a faster machine for other purposes.

Try running KDE on a 233 MHz Pentium II...
That's not really true either, as if anything the requirements to run KDE have decreased for quite some time now.

[intarweb]

Hm, i must do something wrong then, as I don't reinstall and don't fiddle, but just use Dapper?
Any hint on what I did wrong?
You're not one of the users who reinstalls every week then. Big deal. Bravo. Look at the forums and you'll see all those people messing around with their fglrx, Xgl, wifi drivers, wpa supplicants and what not, and wiping everything out afterwards, when things go wrong.

I never said Dapper doesn't work for ME. It does, and it works great, 99% of the stuff works out of the box and on a very recent laptop too. It seems though that many Ubuntu users are still experimenting with the cutting-edge stuff on Dapper. That's good too; more power for them.

Tinkering with experimental aspects of an OS doesn't mean you use it. I'm sure that a great percentage of people trying to get eye candy to work, have a separate XP installation to play their games on. So, whether Ubuntu is fast, free or whatever, they don't care. They care to get their spanking $400 video card (which they bought for games under XP -- mostly) working under Ubuntu, just because.


That's not really true either, as if anything the requirements to run KDE have decreased for quite some time now.
Last time I tried out KDE it seemed slow to me, but maybe it was just my hardware (older laptop, 1 GHz, 384 MB RAM). And anyway, KDE was just an example, and maybe GNOME is a better example there (although the GNOME release on Dapper is faster than the one on Breezy).

[u.b.u.n.t.u]

intarweb I have used XP since it came out and I can honestly say that I do not like it. Dapper on the other hand looks grand. I have moved to linux type software in Firefox and Thunderbird. The amount of times I have had to reinstall XP is insane. I have only used Dapper for 1 week but I feel very positive towards it.

I look with one eye on Vista. I compare Ubuntu more and more with Vista each passing day. I ask myself, what am I getting for what Vista is asking. I must be missing something because I still don't understand.

The way Ubuntu is progressing, and I had a look in at the early days, is nothing less than astounding. Yes the learning curve is steep but I am very happy when I make progress and it isn't as though it will always be so difficult.

The recommended system requirements are a valid point for consideration. Does Vista, needing several times the resources of Ubuntu, justify it's need or not. I see Vista as eye candy and a reshaping of XP. It is a no brainer compared to Dapper on every level except gaming.

[red_Marvin]

AS a reference I can say that I did a breezxy server install on an old
dell laptop (266MHz PII 128Mb RAM 4Gb HD)
Bootup time was about 2 minutes.

Then I tried DSL, bootup to fluxbox (minus login typing) was about 1min 20s.

[intarweb]

The recommended system requirements are a valid point for consideration. Does Vista, needing several times the resources of Ubuntu, justify it's need or not. I see Vista as eye candy and a reshaping of XP. It is a no brainer compared to Dapper on every level except gaming.

I agree with you that Vista seems like a prettier rehashing of XP, with lots of eye-candy thrown in to compete with OS X. Myself, I turn off many of the beutifications in XP, even if my laptop can handle it perfectly, since I find they distract from getting stuff done. Eye-candy is pretty but rarely provides information. One such thing I liked on Breezy's GNOME was the pulsating color of the taskbar entries, when a task requires user attention. It looks cool and is also useful.

I could care less for Xgl and compositing. Being able to see true transparency in a terminal looks neat, but distracts from the terminal text. Window drop shadows are IMO totally redundant, and the only real reason in Xgl for me is the ability to minimize stuff like video and watch it play minimized. And even that, is purely overload and not necessary.

To be honest, I doubt we need much of the functionality that is even provided in GNOME (or any other desktop environment) nowadays. Sure, everything looks slicker and more integrated nowadays, but I don't spend THAT much time in front of the PC as to make those things essential.

There are better things to do than fiddle around endlessly with your software configuration in order to get a couple of drop shadows... and I would definitely not make harware companies richer so that I can pretend I run MacOS X.

[skimitar]

I installed Ubuntu on a spare 450MHz P3 with 128 Mb only a week ago and it runs fine. XFCE sure helps though.

XP was just too sluggish and kept crashing. After a few cracks at the Ubuntu install which randomly failed I tracked this down to a memory stick that must have died in the last few weeks or so (hence, I guess, the problems with XP).

This being said, I can remember the performance of XP on that machine when it was working fine with the full 256 Mb and Ubuntu out performs it.

And very ergonomically sound too - OpenOffice.org affords me the opportunity to walk around the house a few times and stretch while it opens up ;) But it is reasonable when it eventually does open.

So yes, this is a very usable machine with these specs.

[dabear]

Has anybody here run a successful installation of Ubuntu on 128 MB (and actually done anything with it)?
Hehehe, I ran both Windows Xp SP2 and Ubuntu hoary with gnome on a computer with 64megs of RAM. I was able to open gedit and wordpad, but not much more.

Swapped as hell all the time :cool:

[Mr_J_]

If you are going to buy a computer pre-assembled, then I recomend anything with the new processors, at least 1GB of RAM, and the Graphics card with at least 128MB.

Non pre-assembled...
Then any P4 or AMD Athlon64... I have an Athlon64 2.0GHz.
512MB if you really want to save $. Vista works nicely with this.
80GB worth of HDD is the minimum I can find so use that.
20 - Vista(NTFS) / 20 - Ubuntu(Ext3) / 40GB - Home(FAT32)
I have a Nvidia 6600GT 128MB DDR3 and I got all of Aero. Or so it told me...

[markba]

I've installed Dapper with the default GNOME on a spare PC, a Celeron 700 Mhz. I have updated memory from 128 to 256 MB, this really makes a difference.
I consider this configuration as an absolute minimum, it's reasonably fast but not more than that.

[bruce89]

I have Xubuntu Dapper on a Celery 300, with 386MiB of memory, a bit slow (Firefox is rubbish on it)

[AirRaven]

I've got to say that I ran XP Home with all the graphical bells and whistles perfectly well on a system with 128MB of RAM for years and never had any real problems. It was slightly sluggish at times, but no more so than GNOME with all the bells and whistles on basic VESA drivers.

Now- GNOME or XP on 64MB of RAM. Until you've tried that you don't know the true meaning of pain.

[Iandefor]

Has anybody here run a successful installation of Ubuntu on 128 MB (and actually done anything with it)? My first four months of using Ubuntu were on a computer with 64 megs of RAM.

[yatt]

This has been discussed here:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=179193

It seems that Vista's minimum is 512mb of Ram, not 1 GB.

Has anybody here run a successful installation of Ubuntu on 128 MB (and actually done anything with it)?
I ran Ubuntu Warty and Hoary on a PC with only 96MB of RAM (1.3 GHz Athlon), and it ran fine.

[3rdalbum]

I've run Ubuntu on a computer with 128mb and a 333MHz CPU. It ran terribly slowly, but it was kinda usable.

Now I've got Enlightenment E16 running on this old Breezy computer, with all the eye-candy turned on, and it's virtually painless.

[Iandefor]

I've run Ubuntu on a computer with 128mb and a 333MHz CPU. It ran terribly slowly, but it was kinda usable.

Now I've got Enlightenment E16 running on this old Breezy computer, with all the eye-candy turned on, and it's virtually painless. Enlightenment is a delight to use on older computers. If you combine it with XFCE, it's a little heavier but much more usable all of a sudden.

[warp99]

I have a G3 300mhz ibook with 544mb and Dapper runs pretty quick considering it's age (Mfg. 1999). I can also say that Dapper does run much faster than Breezy or OS 9.1 on the same machine. I've never installed OS X, but I'm not willing to spend the $130 USD to find out. :cool:

Edit: This post was done on the ibook using Firefox 1.5.