On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 01:28 +0000, Michael Fothergill wrote: > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrei Popescu) > >To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > >Subject: Re: dumb question about upgrading the kernel and SATA disks.... > >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:58:18 +0200 > > > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 12:47:31AM +0000, Michael Fothergill wrote: > > > > > >First you should try installing the kernel available in sarge. Use > > > > > > > > aptitude install kernel-image-2.6.8-3-k7 > > > > > > I did this. It worked. > > > uname -a > > > Linux spc1-burn4-0-0-cust262 2.6.8-3-k7 #1 Tue Dec 5 23:58:25 UTC 2006 > >i686 GNU/Linux > > > >Great. Does the SATA disk work? > > I have been looking at a shop on the web that sells internal hard drives. > For about 30 UK sterling I could get either an 80GB PATA type disk or a 80GB > SATA disk.... I was a bit afraid of buying the SATA disk because I thought > I would have hardware recognition problems.... But this has convinced me > that it is not a waste of money to get the SATA drive... > > I am also interested in which on line shops you recommend for buying a > internal hard drive..... > > Regards > > Michael Fothergill > > P.S. How much RAM should a computer have to be happy running Gnome, X and > e.g. Openoffice.....? I have 256MB of NVRAM. Should I upgrade to 512MB. > > I am thinking of buying a new box from an outfit in the UK Golden > Electronics. For 170 GBP they will give you a box (no monitor) that has an > AMD 64 Sempron CPU and a decent hard drive and other gear etc.... Plus 512 > MB of RAM. > > My notion (trash at will) is that if I buy a 64 bit machine it would last > longer than 32 bit architecture because the 64 bit machine can handle a huge > amount of RAM.... So in 5 years time then if the latest version of Debian > uses much more memory than today to run gnome and OO then I can but much > more RAM in there e.g. 5 GB than a 32 bit machine could handle. > > Is this logical or is it goofy?
Quite logical and good to think ahead. What is the ram limit on a 32 bit machine, 4Gigs IIRC. That leaves a lot of room for growth I think. I run a 64bit machine myself with 512M of ram, just because that's the way it came to me. I find 256Megs of ram plenty (that's what I have at work) for my needs but depending on what you do on that machine it may not be enough. Video editing takes a lot of ram so for that 512 - 1024 MB (perhaps even more) would be needed. Just my $0.02.. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
