Windows XP ran just fine on 128MB of RAM

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

Why?

Other urls found in this thread:

puppylinux.org/wikka/MinimumSystemRequirements
damnsmalllinux.org/
puppylinux.org/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

differences in their operative capacity and how they're optimized

Because Windows XP is the greatest OS in human history.

Windows xp is still so much more functional too.

>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.

>xfeces
install openbox

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

W O W
O
W

Can't even search on start

>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.

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

>>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

What WM is that

>>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.

what?

I think he meant desktop environment

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

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

I did, whoops.

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

XP could run on

fewer features, less memory.

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

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.

puppylinux.org/wikka/MinimumSystemRequirements

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

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.

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.

damnsmalllinux.org/
puppylinux.org/
These are more what you are thinking of.

What was Sup Forums's monitor resolution when you had XP?

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

1600x1200.

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

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

> just fine
>JUST
>FINE

don't fucking trigger me, user

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

?

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.

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

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

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

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

This makes me sad.

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

looks like fluxbox

lol true

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.

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.

No sourcecode available + MS would sue them to oblivion.

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

>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

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

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.

ReactOS

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Nice

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

>Windows 2000 was the high point of Windows

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

I secretly want to, yes .___.

Nods in the affirmative while grasping at testicles

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.

Using swap is fucking awful.

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.

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

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

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.

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

no. not everyone likes a keyboard only terminal manual.

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

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

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.

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

And why do you need a graphical program for TEXT?

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

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.

>>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.

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

>doesn't even post proof
nice try faggot

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.

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

>swap file on a painfully slow PATA disk
JUST

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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