>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM >"Lightweight"

>>57813342
differences in their operative capacity and how they're optimized

>>57813342
Because Windows XP is the greatest OS in human history.

>>57813342
Windows xp is still so much more functional too.

File: 1450344802721.jpg (137KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1024x768px

>>57813342
>Xfce
>"lightweight"

Yeah, "lightweight" is pretty subjective anymore. Xfce is a bloated piece of shit.

You don't actually need a desktop environment, though. A window manager alone is perfectly suitable, and in fact that's all some distros provide you with by default.

>>57813342
>xfeces
install openbox

>>57813393
windows xp work on 128mb
dont ever think about opening a browser tho.

>>57813533
Windows xp SP3 will work on 64MB ram and you can still run notepad/pinball.

I'm pretty sure our expectations have changed dramatically. I used to turn on my PC and go get a snack. Come back and it's still loading on login stuff, eventually it stops and I open one browser, wait for it to load one page.. someone invents frames, we expect more things to run in the background all the time, etc..

I turned on an XP laptop that I thought was pretty fast when the battery stopped taking a charge and I stopped using it every day until it just ended up in a closet, it was like I was using a machine full of malware with a dying harddrive. My habits now are ridiculous in that context

>>57813596
tabs, not frames, frames were already a thing at this point

>>57813596
I never had that. My pc on windows xp used to boot up in a minute on my old 40GB HDD and things were nowhere near as slow as they are now. Computers have gotten faster, but software has gotten slower.

>>57813611
that HDD size doesn't imply that it was slow or didn't have enough RAM though, and I think that software has gotten more resource hungry because of all of the things we expect it to do.

>>57813342
The core xfce runs on 128MiB with no problem. It all comes down to usability:

>Internet explorer 6 ran on 128 MiB just fine
>Modern browsers keep taking GiBs of RAM

>>57813564
W O W
O
W

>>57813393
Can't even search on start

>>57813342
>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
Depends on your definition of "fine". In my own experience XP runs like shit with both 128 or 256 mb unless you don't touch anything and you don't try to use any modern browser. Back then we was a lot more limited but it was "fine" because it was the statu quo.

>>57813474
>A window manager alone is perfectly suitable,
Except no. Windows XP had a window manager, so why can't I have a window manager?

>>57813342
>>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
No it didnt.

XP was bloated as fuck for the old RAM standards.

>mfw my raspi 3 is pushing 300MB running barely anything

>>57813474
What WM is that

>>57813342
>>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
>>"Lightweight" desktop environments run like shit on 128MB or even 256MB of RAM

No, XP ran like dogshit with 128mb of ram. 256 was just serviceable. You wanted 512mb of ram back then in the same way you would want 4gb today.

>>57813812
what?

>>57814171
I think he meant desktop environment

>>57813564

Yes, but again, try running Firefox on 64 MB of RAM.

>>57813770

Internet Explorer 6 didn't support HTML5, CSS3, or ECMAScript 6. Less features, less memory.

>>57814177
I did, whoops.

>>57813342
>>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
Fucking bullshit.

XP could run on <=128MB but you had to disable a lot of services.

>>57814187
fewer features, less memory.

>>57814187
Name one Linux distro that can boot up with a decent looking UI and can play pinball flawlessly on a machine with 64MB ram.

>>57814332
I don't think XP even meets that criteria.

Did you people even use XP in the first place? It runs like absolute shit on systems with less than 256MB. To make it run on less you had to remove and disable disable components.

>>57814332

http://www.puppylinux.org/wikka/MinimumSystemRequirements

>>57813342
if you are using 128mb of ram you might as well just not run X. Isn't wayland supposed to be better?

File: xp25.gif (30KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 800x600px

>>57814404
It does.

I have a DELL laptop someone gave me.

>celeron 400mhz
>64MB ram
>60GB HDD
>ATI Rage mobility 2MB
>windows 98

I installed xp on it, it ran fine just transferring files, pinball worked, and vlc worked fine for mp3 files.

Upgraded to 192MB and I don't even know what to do with it.

>>57814451
Dude.
>People have succeeded in running Puppy with a 333MHz CPU and 64MB. However having 256MB RAM and a 512MB swap file is more realistic.

>>57813342
http://damnsmalllinux.org/
http://puppylinux.org/
These are more what you are thinking of.

What was /g/'s monitor resolution when you had XP?

>>57814642
1280x1024 sadly I had a crt while using windows 98 capable of 1600x1200 @ 60hz

File: IMG_20161202_191617_931.jpg (41KB, 480x414px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x414px

>>57814642
1600x1200.

Still have the same monitor on my modern pc. Going to run this thing into the ground.

>>57814642
1024x768. It could go higher but it was unreadable past that on my 15" display.

>>57813342
> just fine
>JUST
>FINE

don't fucking trigger me, anon

>>57814674
ever had trouble with eye strain? the CRTs I had even at 90Hz would always irritate the fuck out of my eyes

File: a.png (950KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 1024x768px

>>57813342
?

>>57815074
Only at 60hz, which was when I tried 2048x1536, but I recently got a new VGA cable that let's me do that at 75hz too so I'm good.

>>57814404
My first system to use XP was a K6-III 333MHz machine with 192 MB and it ran great.

>>57814062
Looks like any *box wm (Blackbox, Fluxbox or the like).

>>57815092
>htop
>didn't read the top manpage
>arch
why am I not surprised.

File: 1480377807638.gif (973KB, 430x227px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 430x227px

>technology gets faster, but it's completely pointless because developers just let their programs be heavy and bloated because "modern devices can handle it"

>>57815652
This makes me sad.

>>57813474
>that wifi manager
damn, haven't seen that in ages

>>57814062
looks like fluxbox

>>57813428
lol true

>>57813710
Of course that's a part of it, but most software simply isn't optimized very much if at all these days. Why bother when CPU time is cheaper than programmer time.

File: macbook_air_versus_macbook-100575220-orig.png (134KB, 1006x571px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1006x571px

>>57814672
1280x1024 was objectively the best resolution ever

Nowadays they call 1366x768 laptops HD™ because 768>720 while we had glorious 1024 horizontal lines in bases 1600x1200 @ 120Hz in glorious CRT screens at the end of the 90s and no one felt the need to advertise it as High-Definition™

Makes you think that technology hasn't advanced as much as marketing has and in many ways we have regressed

Why hasn't anybody forked XP?

It is forever the greatest operating system designed.

what makes winxp so great?

Windows is written by paid developers that had to go through an education, XFAECES was not.

>>57816711
No sourcecode available + MS would sue them to oblivion.

>>57815350
the manpage ui is terrible and thats why no one reads them. also the shit that can be found from google are actually useful.. manpages dont tell what command you need to do a thing but have a 100 line explanation about what --nigger 2$£:$$£5 does

File: Windows_2000_Explorer.png (23KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 800x600px

>>57816741
>what makes winxp so great?
Nostalgia, XP was a piece of shit

>first windows with activation
>first windows with upnp and on by default
>first windows since 95 not using the classic theme by default
>the default luna theme and default icon theme was in bad taste and dropped the timeless 95-2000 design
>it came with an animated dog by default in the search feature that found nothing
>security was a complete joke (ie6, upnp, worms) until sp2 which took a long time
>more bloated and less secure than windows 2000
>xp home was a piece of shit compared to 2000 pro and it was what came by default with most systems

Windows 2000 was the high point of Windows

>>57816792
>the manpage ui is terrible
nice b8, go back to windows or toddler os pajeet.

>>57813611
>>57813342
devs have become lazy because of the leaps in RAM and HDD size/speed.

Take a look at a game like Roller Coaster Tycoon 1 or 2. Entirely programmed in Assembly, has physics, hundreds if not thousand of individual actors in screen at the same time, doing separate tasks, yet it runs completely smooth even on an ancient machine. That's because it talks directly to the CPU, skipping all the unnecessary steps invented by programming languages, and it actually respects your computers limitations.

>>57816711
ReactOS

>>57813911
Install Gentoo.
I'm at like 100mb used on my netbook with amd64 binaries with march native running x and dillo.
Fucking Dillo, use that, it's great.

>>57815652
I keep using this analogy because it's totally apt.

Its an RPG level scaling system.
>gain some levels
>can beat all the enemies in this area much better than before
>go to next area
>back to square one
>so you have to gain levels
>now you can beat the enemies in this area much easier
>then you go to the next area...

And all that changed in the pallet of the enemies.

>>57814603
Come on, DSL is dead. That's like me, trying hard to get anything modern running on my n900.

XFCE run just fine on 64MB. Did you bother setting up a swap?

>>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM

I can play that game to.

>Amiga Workbench 3.0 ran just fine on 2MB of RAM

>>57816705
True dat.
But companies don't bother, they generate sales with software constantly slowing down any machine.
I'm waiting for Windows to really fuck up modern nvme drives, so we're back to one minute bootup times again.

>>57816816
It is terrible, like everything Unix it's some horrid in-joke that's barely useable.
The GNU tools work hard to be somewhat user friendly, by attaching kludges to the warts that is Unix.
My favorite language is *sh though.

>>57816919
>so we're back to one minute bootup times again.

But anon, don't you want to speed up your boot and work time with a brand new XSSD?

>>57816846
Nice

>>57816914
My C64 can run GEOS fine with 64k.
Yes, I thought about slapping a tcp stack on there, for the ultimate shitposting experience.

>>57816803
>Windows 2000 was the high point of Windows

The least secure and least stable OS, quality b8 cunt.

>>57816961
I secretly want to, yes .___.

>>57816962
Nods in the affirmative while grasping at testicles

>>57816976
>>57816914
What the point of these comparisons are, to me at least, is that it's the software that dictates how good the software is, not the other way around.

Imagine an OS that's less than 30MB. Even the shittiest hard drive could throw the entirety of that on to the slowest RAM in now time at all.

>>57816886
Using swap is fucking awful.

>>57813911
Running raspbian? It's full of bloat and other shite you don't need. Make your own custom distro with buildroot. You can make a linux distro that uses 10MiB RAM when compiling in only a minimal set of applications.

>>57813342
Because you're from a 3rd world country that can't even afford a $200 Walmart laptop.

>>57817036
Rich people should be more discerning in their taste. They should be because they can (allegedly) afford to be.

>>57816955
yes a text file with highlighting for the commands is terrible. I should never have to read a manual, the program should just read my mind and know what I want to achieve :^)

btw the version of less that you are calling when you type man is the gnu version if you are on gnu/linux. So yes it is also a gnu tool.

>>57817027
Word.
It's slightly harder to maintain though, since you can't just go ahead and apt-get your shit and it just werks.

File: man.png (51KB, 1273x752px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1273x752px

>>57816816
no. not everyone likes a keyboard only terminal manual.

>>57817027
>Using swap is fucking awful.
What do you think a page file is genius?

>>57817079
>not everyone likes a keyboard only terminal manual.
>posts a keyboard only terminal manual.
what exactly were you trying to portray with this post.

>>57817060
Man pages are written in a really terse style. I think a fucking manual should be slightly more verbose than the command's help output.
The format's fine, it affords to be installed practically anywhere, since it's quite compact, but some authors still think that documentation is lame.

>>57817079
You can use the scroll wheel in most terminal emulators as well.

And why do you need a graphical program for TEXT?

>>57817060
Scratch that, you just want an argument for the argument's sake, I'd rather do something else.

>>57817111
That's an issue with the developer rather than the format.

No one would have an issue with JavaScript if it wasn't used so horrendously.

>>57813342
>>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
>just fine
It fucking didn't even on release, take off your shitty nostalgia goggles you fag.

By the time it got to SP3 512MB was the bare minimum you needed to do anything on XP.

>>57817141
Why do Linux fags lie so much?
I've got it running just fine on an old laptop with 64MB ram. I just use it for nostalgia pinball and it works perfectly

>>57817202
>doesn't even post proof
nice try faggot

>>57817202
Stop embarassing yourself you dumbass.

Relying on pagefile to do anything at all is not "running fine".
Being able to run a single program at the time is not "running fine".
Not having the possibility to multitask is not "running fine".

Windows XP didn't run fine on 128MB RAM even on release period.

>>57813342
>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
kek and all the fucktard who believe this

File: can't wake up.jpg (43KB, 600x706px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x706px

>>57817239
>swap file on a painfully slow PATA disk
JUST

File: png.png (59KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1280x800px

its possible to make linux use less memory but making it use less than this wont be easy

>>57817285
also systemd was removed from this because it used 10 mb more memory than upstart

>>57817285
64MB real RAM. You can do it with a swap file. It's no different than the page files Windows uses or Connectix RAM Doubler or Adobe Photoshop swap. The concept is older than your mom.

>>57817285
You could easily shave 5MB of memory usage if you replaced OpenBox with TinyWM.

>>57817325
i want to avoid using the swap file. that thing is slow as fuck on a ide drive.

>>57817330
ok. also it runs lubuntu because many other distros dont work on it. might have something to do with it being a very old 32 bit cpu. tried to boot arch on it first but that would load for few seconds and crash/only show a black screen

>>57817406
get ubuntu server and build up from scratch, or better, dbian netinstall

File: m300_arch.png (41KB, 2728x1668px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 2728x1668px

>>57817285
>tfw can't find the acutal screenshot of the system

>>57813342
* "Computer science" departments are graduating students who don't have a fucking clue about data structures or optimization.

* Mommy coder camps graduate "programmers" who know even less.

* Pajeet workforce.

* Midwit middle management pushes flashy useless features over stability and performance.

Choose all of the above.

>>57814187
>Internet Explorer 6 didn't support HTML5, CSS3, or ECMAScript 6.

And nothing of value was lost.

>>57817531
t. clueless babby

File: IMG_20161203_124902.jpg (915KB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 2448x2448px

>>57817493
you're now comparing apples to oranges.
xorg and graphical components on top of it require a lot of memory.


this thing runs linux with wlan, bluetooth, and graphical ui services on <60MB of ram.
Granted, it doesn't use xorg.

File: all_loonixes.png (180KB, 1840x1766px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1840x1766px

>>57817609
the machine ran X, i just ssh'd into it to complete pic related

>>57817615
sorry then, I assumed it was a headless server from the putty screen.

Linux DE developers have enough trouble keeping up with features and bugfixing, do you think they can allocate resources to optimization? Just be grateful they kind of work for their purposes.

>>57814187
>Yes, but again, try running Firefox on 64 MB of RAM.
Never heard of MemoryFox?

>>57813342
xp would run even on your grandmas underwear but it wouldnt be very usable

File: KE6QNYV.png (1MB, 1357x1281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1357x1281px

>>57817565
t. karlie koder

>>57817703
ironic, since you seem more of the clueless karlie type

>>57817609
Ev3 is pretty cool.

>>57817609
Where are the GUI services you mentioned?

File: preview.gif (39KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x512px

Without saying "because it was written better" why is it that you could have Workbench, with a MUI custom UI running on single-digit RAM and a <30MHz CPU, but even early versions of things like GTK require so much more?

Was it something to do with how things were drawn on the screen, or what?

I know X probably consumes a lot because it's intended for servers rather than home computers, but what about everything else?

>>57813342
>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
No, it didn't. You needed at least 256MB if wanted to do anything with your pc. 512MB was the sweet spot.

>>57817694
It's dumb of them anyway. If they could keep their ego in check then optimization would be the name of the game.

So much time wasted on trying to out-pretty Windows and OS-X, when they should instead work on making something that, to re-appropriate a phrase, "just works."

>>57817731
Can't you see the screen?

>>57817782
Well, it's fucking nothing to be honest. An arduino an drive a screen like this with fuck all RAM

File: IMG_20161112_235605.jpg (1MB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x2448px

>>57817718
Tad expensive if you have no clue what to do with it though.

File: 1460008806369.jpg (55KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x800px

>>57817768
>mfw 192MB ram and windows xp sp3
>mfw everything works and you're full of shit

>>57817793
Sure it doesn't serve any purpose other than basic functionality check, loading programs and service management.

>>57817811
>everything works
Sure thing kiddo. Now try opening something like Sonar 1.

>>57817764
Because "draw a grey box here and put 'Save' on it" was trivial, even for the time. That grey box isn't actually an image, but a set of commands telling the computer what to put there. It's likely no more complex than "rectangle with these colours" being known by the computer, then it getting the size later. You can do that in almost literally 4 lines of code.

Compare how everything is now an "image" that is far more complex in shape and effects. Rounded edges are far more complex, as are glows and such like.

>>57817829
The fuck is that? I just play pinball and retro games like roller coaster tycoon.

>>57817764
>I know X probably consumes a lot because it's intended for servers rather than home computers, but what about everything else?
It consumes a lot because it's easily one of the shittiest pieces of software still in use on desktop computers.
It's an outdated complex behemoth somehow held together by tons of security and functionality patches with no alternatives on the horizon yet.

>>57814187
Current-day firefox? You're right, a system with 64 MB would shit itself in a second. Hell, a system with anywhere under 1 GB would flip its shit. But current-day standards like that are irrelevant. The firefox of the early 2000s worked fine on XP with 64 MB. I know because that's what I used from 2003-2004.

>HP Pavilion N5150 laptop
>Pentium III 600 MHz
>64 MB RAM
>Windows XP

>>57817850
You must be over 18 to be here.

>>57817865
Then fuck off if you're underage.

>>57817780
>optimization would be the name of the game

Optimization will not win people to switch to Linux, now less than ever before. This is perhaps the moment in desktop/laptop computing where optimization is needed the least. CPU power has been largely sufficient to run most stuff that a DE might be concerned with, and in my experience if anyone ever complains about their OS running slow it's because of their shitty 5400rpm hdd dragging the performance down. So no, I don't believe OS optimization is the key. Not now that we're putting up with plain horrible performance and usability with ever increasingly web-based tech instead.

(Readproofing this, I realize I let my thoughts speak in freewheel. Don't take this against the post I quoted)

File: 2ec6b676fffc965ac2f24df5f13bfa8282b13350.png (43KB, 808x489px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 808x489px

>>57817285
Like always non Arch users are spreading their lies.

The truth scare you, you should use Arch, but you made lies to avoid the truth.

>>57817850
>I just play pinball and retro games like roller coaster tycoon.
t. underage

File: jpg.jpg (535KB, 1050x960px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1050x960px

>>57813342
>entire PC-DOS 2.11 ran fine on 192kb ram (and even less)
>Linux kernel itself requires ~2mb to just work properly
>and you can't even do anything on kernel alone

Why?

>>57817909
>>>/v/

>>57818116
kill yourself

File: 300px-Icewm-default.jpg (6KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x225px

>>57813342
use IceWM

>>57818115
DOS is to operating systems what shell is to applications. An empty shell which does nothing.

>>57818131
Come here and make me.

LXDE runs on 128MB

>>57813342
Because "lightweight", in the developer's words, is to run on a Core 2 Duo with 2GB of RAM. Sadly the best thing for old machines is XP, which is of course not supported. Even Puppy Linux has become too bloated for, say, a Pentium 3.

>>57818164
>for, say, a Pentium 3.
I find that very hard to believe.

>>57818164
'Lightweight' means 'does fucking nothing but consumes the resources of things that do.'

Same with 'minimalist'.

>>57813342
modern monitors have higher resolution and more colors so more ram is needed to store it

source: don't trust me

Using more memory is not a bad sign. Not using available memory could actually be the cause of low performance.

>>57813342
>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
?

stop replying to a troll thread

>>57818201
An OS is not the be-all-end-all of the computer's usage. Saying "oh its making use of RAM" is a slippery slope because it sets the bar of standards ever lower.

"Oh, its fine that it's using 20GB, after all, you've got 32GB"

And you can't say that it will free up the memory when its needed by something else because the OS is designed to run on 20GB, you you've really only got 12GB to play with.

>>57818208
the minimum requirements for XP are 64MB and the recommended are 128

File: 1468134933814.jpg (71KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x600px

https://rbt.asia/g/thread/S55899614#p55899943

>>57818208
it is true tho
i remember 10-15yrs ago we used to have 128-256mb ram and firefox worked

>>57813342
Freetards are all amateur script kiddies who can only write spaghetti code that runs like trash.

Freetards exist outside of the free market with cutthroat competition, so they don't have to better themselves and their product to stay current, because they don't sell their product and their livelihood doesn't depend on it.

>>57818258
That means absolutely nothing if it operates slowly. And don't say it wasn't slow, it was sluggish as fuck sometimes and had terrible fragmentation issues. It was also vulnerable as fuck, most users got infected in less than a month of usage.
I used it for years on 500MB RAM, it wasn't as fast as you people think. Needing 1GB of RAM is a good sacrifice to have a twice as fast OS.

>>57818302
>spaghetti code
Windows is coded much worse though.

>>57818326
Bill Gates is a billionaire, Stallman and other freetards like linus are poorfags and stuck eating garbage from their feet.

>>57818283
>i remember 10-15yrs ago we used to have 128-256mb ram and firefox worked
Confirmed. Used to run Minefield on Windows XP with 256MB of RAM and a 1.6GHz Celeron until mid 2009. Shit ran pretty okay.

>>57818379
Still obscure shit for 90% percent of consumers. MS is still king, freetards are poorfags.

>>57818356
>memes, the post

>>57818395
But it's true, what exactly in that post is false?

>>57817904
i do use it on a modern pc with a xeon cpu but it just does not boot on that laptop. should work if i compile a custom kernel and modify the default iso but its just easier to install a distro that supports it by default

>>57813342
>XFCE
>Light weight.
Try JWM.
XFCE minimum HW are 2 GHz CPU + 1 GB RAM.

XFCE is such a shit show.

>we're lightweight!
>heavier than MATE
>which is based on GNOME 2
>which was never "light"

>>57818482
it's not heavier than mate, I've used mate for almost a year and xfce is definitely lighter on resources.

>>57818482
I wouldn't have a problem with it if it wasn't buggy as all ffuck. Any DE that needs a separate compositor installed should have the developers shot

>>57818322
>dumb users got infected in less than a month of usage
FTFY

>>57814672
>capable of 1600x1200 @ 60hz

Almost any even half reasonable 17'' CRT monitor was "capable" of that. That doesn't mean it was usable. I have a CRT monitor that goes as far as 2048x1536@80 Hz which is much more usable thanks to the reasonable refresh rate, but resolutions which are too close to the dot pitch limit aren't too comfortable no matter what.

>>57818506
Only KDE and Ghanoum's hell don't need separate compositor. 4.14 may solve this "bug".

>>57818395
Why did you answer that shithead? Faggot.

>>57818575
Unity is hated on here but it has the best out of the box compositor I've seen. I've literally never had any tearing with it

>>57818590
Yeah. I forgot unity.

>>57814674
>generic non-pnp monitor

Uh... yea? What monitor model is it?

>>57816846
MS lets it be because it's still not usable for production systems - once (if) it gets that far the project is bound to be C&D'd.

>>57816803
Is UPNP botnet?

>>57816914
Amiga Workbench 1.3 ran just fine on 512kB of RAM.

File: 1478643353732.jpg (183KB, 1260x1024px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1260x1024px

>>57818733
Russians will surely give a flying fuck about a retarded US company.

>>57816978
You must have mistaken NT 5.0 for DOS 8.0 with an win32 4.9 overlay on top of it (aka "Windows Millennium Edition").

>>57817255
>painfully slow PATA disk
>implying that SATA wasn't just a higher interface speed but the drives themselves were barely if at all faster than mid-to-late-00s PATA drives

>>57817565
The babbies are getting more and more obstinate and agressive. In the previous /tpg/ some kiddo started attacking proper keyboards calling them utter shit and essentially claiming how chiclet was way superior and the "grandpas" believing otherwise should fuck off and die.

>>57818141
No, it's not, it's a full operating system - real mode, single-user, and with only rudimentary networking capabilities which were tacked on later, but it's still a full operating system featuring a bootloader, kernel, FAT filesystem support and many other things which make up a complete OS. By your misguided analogy Linux in single-user mode is also "just a shell" - then try to chainload bash directly from the BIOS, good luck.

>>57818199
A triple-buffered 4k framebuffer is only about 100 MB in size.

>>57817285
>>57819484

>>57813342

>Xfce
>lightweight

Anyone tried TinyCore Linux?
Supposedly some of the core DSL devs moved over to that and it claims to run in as little as 64MB of RAM

>>57819759
I've only seen some youtube tutorials. Seems like it was primarily designed for embedded systems. Also aren't the packages like 7 years old?

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-03 at 10.57.50 AM.png (983KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

983KB, 1280x800px

>>57813342
Because you need a new computer every 10 years. Yo also need to put new parts in every 2-4 years. I have a 10 year old Mac that's dual booting Lion and Debian with LXDE. Both operating systems are decent on this machine. However, it has been upgraded to 4GB of RAM and a 256GB SSD. If you don't replace small parts like that every once in a while, you have yourself to blame.

I bet this dumbfuck has desktop compositing enabled or something with software rendering. But yeah XFCE isn't lightweight, LXDE is what you're looking for. Even with 8GB, lxpanel right now is consuming about 50MB, and that's with some performance monitoring applets, etc. The entire system sans-browser right now is using about 100MB, and again, it could use less, it's just taking what's available for convenience, and it would still run a lot faster than Windows XP ever did.

>>57814404
>>57814187
I'm pretty sure I ran The Sims 1 (with all expansions) in a machine with XP and only 64 MB of RAM. Back in... 2002, I think?

>>57819807
>you need a new computer every 10 years
What?
I have a desktop from 2004, and was thinking of getting a new CPU, and a CMOS battery.

File: 1456647100289.png (120KB, 448x454px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 448x454px

>>57813342
>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
lol fuck no
The min was 256mb for a useable exspirience and dont even think about doing the shit we do on modern PCs with that.By the time i was done with XP (2006) i was easily filling 2gb ram.

The problem with modern computing is largely the fault of bloated websites on the internet.

What if there was a community of websites that operated to debloat the internet, offer performance oriented alternatives for popular websites? Like a gated community of sorts that invites everyone with a 486.

File: tfw.png (2MB, 10000x9441px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 10000x9441px

>>57813342
>128MB of RAM
Internet is full of shit you know.

>>57819946
Are you really that poor that you can't afford an $80 Thinkpad with a Core 2 Duo and 4GB of RAM? What kind of third world shithole are you living in, anon? Ohio wouldn't surprise me.

>>57813342
i have lots of CPU power & RAM not because the desktop window manager needs it, but because when i compile source code or encode music and video files and resource intensive tasks like that, i can get Linux & xfce4 running on a i386 with 32 megs of ram if i just want to run the window manager

File: screenFetch-2016-12-03_10-27-30.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>57820108
ma screenie

File: 172707ttp8010qvmm6nyi7.png (63KB, 414x248px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 414x248px

>>57820096
Are you retarded are illiterate?

I'm running a Xeon E5 2670 V3 and 64GB ram in my primary machine.

>>57813342
That's because Microsoft uses the best C++ programmers in the world to make their OS. They are paid 200K dollars a year.

>>57820175
>Are you retarded are illiterate?
I'm not the illiterate one here.

>>57813474
a window manager alone is not enough. you need one or more of:
- terminal emulator
- web browser
- file manager
- e-mail reader
- document reader
- archive manager
- etc.
add one or more of these things to a WM and you have a DE.

>>57820138
AntiX is nice, but the author is such a fucking faggot, holy shit.

>>57820370
Elaborate.

>>57820387
Antifa.

File: 2016-12-03-175124_1919x1079_scrot.png (612KB, 1919x1079px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 1919x1079px

>>57813342
using low tier shit

>>57814332
install gentoo

>>57813342
>XP ran "fine" with 128 MB of RAM

not really, 128 MB was the minimum system requirement.

I know, I used a dell P4 with 128 of RAM as my main machine for several years as a youngster.

Sure it worked, but adding another stick for 256 made basic system use much smoother.

Windows 98 would be the real winner here.

>>57820395
So?

>>57814561
Xp turns on paging as well

>>57820419
Are you kidding?

>>57814187
More like HTML5 and CSS3 didn't exist before IE6.

>>57814332
post what can do with 64MB of ram

>>57820423
and?

File: 1445448651968.png (461KB, 7477x8192px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 7477x8192px

>>57820424
No. Who cares if he is "antifa".

>>57820458
I do, because it means he's a fucking idiot.

>>57820469
Nice argument. 1/10.

>>57820446
Same thing as swap

>>57820489
I'm not arguing.

File: 173028fplrpdbpxklxx5rr.png (69KB, 421x248px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 421x248px

>>57820214
>are illiterate
fug :DDD

File: 035db4ac026d2e2f6069ef714d94c3c06dcf17e7ecc8ba0a8813b0f63678b444_1.jpg (67KB, 600x320px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x320px

>>57820469
follow your leader m8

>>57820573
You realize antifa is not what it claims to be, right? In fact, they're the very thing they espouse hatred for.

>>57818356
Being a billionaire has nothing to do with putting out a quality product

File: 1929812_867396783368726_3633587510999017_n.jpg (42KB, 388x395px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 388x395px

>>57820590

File: 1480576126333.jpg (70KB, 470x470px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 470x470px

>>57820870

>>57817079
It's literally just words. I take it you don't read books either.

>>57813342
>not using KalibriOS for ultimate performance

>>57821105
muh asm

>>57821113
It's almost literally the RCT of operating systems

File: aa.webm (1016KB, 1024x794px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 1024x794px

werks for me

>>57813342
>what is Puppy Linux
move on

>>57821185
not ven a real computer, retard.

>>57821421
and?

>>57821427
Do the same on bare metal and show us the results, please. No BS excuses to not do it.

>>57821438
the only machine i have on me with 128M ram is my router

why do you think it'd be different on a real machine?

>>57821455
My vm always use less resources than on real machine, even with VHD I use in vm and then put to machine it went from 90mb log in tty to 150mb log in tty.

>>57821487
that makes no sense, are you sure the real machine doesn't have more memory than the vm did?

>>57816978

Get a load of this retard.

>>57814062
For the bar I get is Openbox

>>57814073
>>57814293
This

>>57817811

I'd like to plow that KUHWEEN.

File: 8679499.png (708KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 800x800px

>>57813342
>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
OP IS A FUCKING LIAR

>>57813342
>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
AmigaOS ran just fine on 512KB's

>>57821744
>AmigaOS ran just fine on 512KB's
BIOS runs fine on 64 bytes

File: 1458241447386.jpg (122KB, 524x469px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 524x469px

>no one on this thread Linux automatically allocates unused RAM
>not understanding how lightweight Linux is and how faggot OP is

>>57821701
He's not exactly wrong. Running anything on it is another thing.

>>57813342
>Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM
Bullshit. It was hell on 256MB. You're just not old enough to remember, and this is coming from someone who was 9 when XP came out

>>57822020
Then 1GB is enough for Windows 10.

>>57823064
Not since AU. They doubled the requirement

>>57820796
Are you fucking retarded? If it didn't meet the expectation of the consumer and wasn't quality, Gates would've never become a billionaire. Windows has been successful because it was trying to appeal to every one and succeeded, Linux is complete garbage when it comes to being user friendly, which is why Linux or any other system that's not from Apple or MS will never be successful, because they exist outside the free market zone with actual competition for the user.

>>57823488
>>>57820796
>Are you fucking retarded? If it didn't meet the expectation of the consumer and wasn't quality, Gates would've never become a billionaire.
Their popularity had nothing to do with quality. They literally FORCED they're way to the top. Monopoly-charges didn't come from nowhere.

RAM is dirt cheap these days, you can buy 8GB for like $30, jesus christ there's no excuse to not have at least 16GB of ram in 2016.

>>57823488
>he is STILL saying that quality dictates success

Microsoft have been in and out of court and paid billions in fines for their anticompetitive behaviour, as far back as their F.U.D. against competitors like DR-DOS.

>>57823582
"You can afford to deal with it" would never be a tolerated line of reasoning for terrible manufacturing in any other field than software.

>>57823557
Yeah, keep believing that freetard, I'm sure people would happily use tty to accomplish basic shit instead of the colorful GUI.

>>57823697
So you're saying that Windows 95 was a better operating system than BeOS?

>>57823697
Not freetard, windows 7 users.

Besides, that's not "believing". That's common knowledge for ANYONE tech savvy who lived during 90's and early 2000's.

Or simply looking at history of microsoft, specifically "microsoft monopoly".

>>57823697
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

Some bedtime reading for you.

>>57821903
>BIOS runs fine on 64 bytes
wut

>>57823784
Good thing it became a monopoly, I wouldn't want to jump through huge hoops to do something basic like a spreadsheet or opening an audio file without ALSA shitting itself, or pay for overpriced Apple hardware.

>>57821903
bit banger runs fine on 32 bytes

http://www.linusakesson.net/scene/bitbanger/index.php

>>57823840
You're clearly too uneducated in computing history to be having this argument.

>>57823962
You're clearly too much of a freetard to understand how the free market works. Freetard shit never stood a chance against Windows or Mac, not now not 20 years ago and won't 20 or 2000 years from now. There's a not a single program from freetards that would rival the MS Office suite, or Photoshop or a thousand of other program including drivers for various hardware.

Even if you gave complete monopoly to Linux in the 90s it would never take off, because Linus is a fucking autistic child, just like the most of the freetard community, which is the very reason freetards will never succeed.

>>57824035
DR-DOS was not Linux, neither was BeOS.

Please, go and educate yourself before you continue to make yourself look even more foolish.

In an alleged "free market" Microsoft wouldn't have lasted five minutes.

>>57813342
>windows 95 ran just fine on 16mb of RAM
>"Lightweight" Windows XP won't even run on less than 64

why?

Because tecnology advances over time, that's why

now delet dis stupid thread

>>57824069
>DR-DOS was not Linux, neither was BeOS
Neither has software that can compete with Window. Your point being?

>>57824124
>tecnology advances over time

This should never be used as an excuse for increasingly inefficient software. What you should do is apply it to other things, and see if it acceptable. You would not tolerate a home appliance requiring 10x as much electricity to power, while being no more efficient at its task as one from previous years that did the same with less.

You also wouldn't tolerate a car that was slower and heavier, and used more fuel, than the one you had before.

Do not tolerate sloppy workmanship just because it's "cheap" to deal with the consciences of it, when the cheapest thing to do would be to not need to deal with any consequences at all.

>>57824168
See: >>57823803

>>57824216
windows is the only OS that has become increasingly inefficient over time. Linux and macOS work just fine with 2GB of RAM, and that hasn't changed in about a decade.

>>57824168
DR-DOS was literally a DOS compatible until Microsoft decided to cripple that compatibility simply to destroy DR-DOS by giving fake error messages when there was no error.

Surely such a thing is against the "free market" that you champion?

>>57813342
Because it was made in a time where 128MB memory was commonplace.

There's no reason for modern DEs to purposely gimp themselves in order to be able to run on 10+ year old hardware that no normal person uses anymore.

Even if you insist on running 128 MB you can still get an actual lightweight DE such as LXDE; or just skip DEs altogether and get a window manager.

>>57820048
>>57819946
You're an idiot

>>57824251
Two minority players with no impact in the market are hardly an argument against what I said.

Linux has as much an influence in the sale of home hardware as FreeDOS.

>>57824268
DR-DOS isn't DOS compatible, it's Intel 8086 compatible. What fucking error messages? What the fuck are you talking about?
>IBM originally approached Digital Research, seeking an x86 version of CP/M. However, there were disagreements over the contract, and IBM withdrew. Instead, a deal was struck with Microsoft, who purchased another operating system, 86-DOS, from Seattle Computer Products. This became Microsoft MS-DOS and IBM PC DOS.

>>57824399
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Microsoft

>>57824455
I'm not going to click on your links, whatever you have to say, say it here.

>>57824468
>In 1996, Caldera, Inc. accused Microsoft of several anti-competitive practises, including issuing vaporware announcements, creating FUD, and excluding competitors from participating in beta-test programs in order to destroy competition in the DOS market.[10][11] One of the claims was related to having modified Windows 3.1 so that it would not run on DR DOS 6.0 although there were no technical reasons for it not to work.[10][12] This was caused by the so called AARD code, some encrypted piece of code, which had been found in a number of Microsoft programs. The code would fake nonsensical error messages if run on DR DOS, like:[13][14]

>>Non-Fatal error detected: error #2726
>>Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support
>>Press ENTER to exit or C to continue[13][14]

>If the user chose to press C, Windows would continue to run on DR DOS without problems. While it had been already speculated in the industry that the purpose of this code was to create doubts about DR DOS' compatibility and thereby destroy the product's reputation,[13][14] internal Microsoft memos published as part of the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case later revealed that the specific focus of these tests was in fact DR DOS:[15] At one point, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates sent a memo to a number of employees, reading

>>You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app would do that would make it run with MSDOS and not run with DR-DOS. Is there feature [sic] they have that might get in our way?[10][16]

>Microsoft Senior Vice President Brad Silverberg later sent another memo, stating

>>What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS.[10][16]

>>57824515
>in order to destroy competition in the DOS market.
That's what I meant by cut-throat competition. If you can't win, you lose. There are no rules, if you can't push your product using everything at your disposal, if you can't destroy your competitors, then you belong in the trash and there's no use crying over bad MS when you could've done the same, but couldn't because reasons.

>>57824594
Slaves gonna slave.

>>57813342
Because both CDE, KDE, QT, GTK, GNOME, "WHAT EVER" is "high level" and not even touching the hardware. It talks through tons of shitty layers before anything is done and by that time it's too late and wrong.

>>57824644
Losers gonna lose.

>>57824657
Your master is proud of you little slave.

>>57824594
So you're a free market capitalist...That believes that might of an inferior product makes right over a superior one?

>>57824657
>>57824594
>seriously defending something that doesn't need your defence
>for free?

This is some hardcore slave mentality. He who has the whip-hand has the power, right?

>>57824672
Year, using good software is called slavery. I'd say being a lincuck is slavery, since your system literally fucks you in the ass.
>>57824691
>inferior product makes right over a superior one?
Sure, LIbreOffice is better than MS Office, and Gimp is miles ahead of PS. Delusional as shit.

>>57824733
Again, back to Linux. No one is bringing that up but you.

>>57824748
That was the original point, but it then devolved into BeOS vs Windows which is fucking proprietary just like Windows. The point is there's no good freetard software alternative and if you can't destroy your competition, you lose. Literally nothing is stopping anybody from installing a lincuck system, not MS not anyone else, but most just won't since it's garbage and can't meet their needs.

>>57824823
Good slaves. Here $1.00 for you.

>>57824892
>tfw freetards give you money for using proprietary software

>>57813342
Compare to older Windows XP and new XFCE
> 2003 year
> 2016 year

>>57824823
If this is the case why are MS so worried about FOSS, as was revealed in the Halloween documents?

Even the whole "Microsoft <3 Linux" deal they're pulling is an attempt to try and claw back some standing in the server world, as well as several government departments switching to Libre Office in France, Britain, Spain and Italy. This is as well as Open Document being the format of choice for the EU as a whole.

>>57814187
Use older Opera, Luke.

>>57824987
>to try and claw back some standing in the server world,
They don't need to claw anything back, MS Server is still the go to choice for 100% of small and middle businesses.

>>57814404

I actually ran it on a 64MB gateway with a pentium 3 600mhz and a 8MB savage3d GPU.

Shit ran quake fine.

>>57825012
>Microsoft may have lost tech giants,big businesses, and governments of world powers
>but it has small and medium size businesses

How embarrassing!

>>57825094
>>Microsoft may have lost tech giants,big businesses, and governments of world powers
Does MS know about this? Call them right fucking now!

>>57825121
Of course they do. That's why I said >>57824987

>>57825131
Freetards aren't a competitor to MS according to people who use windows daily and tried linux.

>>57825218
And yet the marketshare of linux just keeps growing. Funny how that works.

>you will never get a UI without huge titlebars and other bloated UI elements

>>57825258
Wow, one whole percent in 20 years! Way to go!

File: Debian 8.png (18KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1024x768px

Openbox + tint2 is probably my favorite lightweight environment, you can see it's only pulling 60MB.

However as soon I open Firefox, it spikes up over 200MB and slows down because you can hear it swapping from the harddrive. You need at least 512MB assigned to this VM to browse comfortably with one tab in Firefox.

>>57825272
2 at the moment. Should be 3 in another year, since MS keeps sabotaging itself.

>>57825286
You can't even configure tint2 to not look like an ugly turd?

>>57825322
It's also hard to accurately measure since so many people have multiple devices, and they're likely to be mobile devices.

File: Debian 8.png (49KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1024x768px

>>57825396
It's just a VM

>>57814642
1162x864. Could have gone higher, but shit was unreadable and it flickered like hell.

>>57817531
>>57818910
Okay then tell me how using flash was superior to HTML5 video, because it wasn't you dipshit.
>inb4 you aren't supposed to watch videos in a browser or some other great argument