Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Hi, On Tuesday 07 November 2006 20:48, Jani Monoses wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 November 2006 20:01, Jani Monoses wrote: > > > Answering to the selling point question: I said it's 'one of the > > > selling points' definitely not the main one. > > > > Another side of this is the thin-client usage. > >

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Ok, thank you cody. I was worried that maybe a full hard drive install required more hardware than with Dapper but that's apparently it is just the livecd. Thanks for the clarification.-Adam On 11/8/06, Cody Somerville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The alternative cd works fine. The live cd is the iss

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

The alternative cd works fine. The live cd is the issue here. :)On 11/8/06, Adam Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:Again, you are referencing the Live cd, I want to know about the Alternate installation cd and success with it under lesser memory footprints under Edgy. Precision is a fluid concept i

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

I think I'll upgrade with the release of the first Flight/Knot/What's-it-named-now?Could you post a message to this mailinglist when that is released?On 11/7/06, Jani Monoses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/7/06, Adam Miller < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jani, Fair enough. I will agree that I

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Again, you are referencing the Live cd, I want to know about the Alternate installation cd and success with it under lesser memory footprints under Edgy.Precision is a fluid concept in a situation like this ... anything to the closest multiple of 32 or 64 would suffice. -AdamOn 11/8/06, [EMAIL PROT

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 写于 2006-11-08 07:14:17: > Anyone with a test system able the check the lowest available specs > for the alternate installation is? I'm just personally curious and > lack the hardware. (actually plan to purchase one off ebay over the > next month just to do testing on feisty with)

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Anyone with a test system able the check the lowest available specs for the alternate installation is? I'm just personally curious and lack the hardware. (actually plan to purchase one off ebay over the next month just to do testing on feisty with) Thanks. -AdamOn 11/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

> The data will probably be the smallest amount of mem I succeeded booting with. It'd be helpful if people who > actually encountered the bug provide this data though... Just booted an installed Edgy system (a few services turned off) with 64Mb RAM. No problems, even the boot time wasn't noticeabl

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Jani Monoses wrote: > > On 11/7/06, *Adam Miller* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Jani, > Fair enough. I will agree that I would like to see samba > support in Thunar or atleast a plugin written for it. I would like > to see Feisty be our boost in

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

On 11/7/06, Adam Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jani, Fair enough. I will agree that I would like to see samba support in Thunar or atleast a plugin written for it. I would like to see Feisty be our boost into the realm of the others and I plan to do my best to be very active in its progres

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

On 11/7/06, Eero Tamminen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi,On Tuesday 07 November 2006 20:01, Jani Monoses wrote:> Answering to the selling point question: I said it's 'one of the selling> points' definitely not the main one.Another side of this is the thin-client usage. Not just low CPU and RAM usage

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Jani, Fair enough. I will agree that I would like to see samba support in Thunar or atleast a plugin written for it. I would like to see Feisty be our boost into the realm of the others and I plan to do my best to be very active in its progress. Also, I heard rumor of beryl taking over as the

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Hi, On Tuesday 07 November 2006 20:01, Jani Monoses wrote: > Answering to the selling point question: I said it's 'one of the selling > points' definitely not the main one. Another side of this is the thin-client usage. Not just low CPU and RAM usage, but lower X traffic. > This said we still h

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Answering to the selling point question: I said it's 'one of the selling points' definitely not the main one.I am aware dsl, puppy, zenwalk etc are better performers on any kind of hardware as far as speed is concerned anyway. But being an ubuntu for older machines is an important characteristic of

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

I was talking about the detection of hardware and stuff like that.On 11/7/06, Adam Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:The Xubuntu developers do more than just wrapping xfce with ubuntu and making an iso out of it. There are certain applications that are ported away from their gnome-lib dependencies

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

> On 11/7/06, daniele favara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 11/7/06, Jani Monoses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On 11/6/06, Adam Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > > Jani, >> > >Do we know an official count on the memory requirements of >> the >> new >> > live cd? I was inte

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

The Xubuntu developers do more than just wrapping xfce with ubuntu and making an iso out of it. There are certain applications that are ported away from their gnome-lib dependencies in order to make them run faster and on a smaller memory footprint. There is also streamlining of our live cd and sta

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

I agree, what's wrong with being able to run it on old hardware? It's not the reason I use Xubuntu, but I have no problems with it.On 11/7/06, Cody Somerville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I use Xubuntu 6.06 w/ 128 mb of Ram and 333mhz and the desktop installed works fine for me (though I'm a bit tig

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

I use Xubuntu 6.06 w/ 128 mb of Ram and 333mhz and the desktop installed works fine for me (though I'm a bit tight for ram and cpu at times - I can't have all the fancy applets and too many programs running but thats to be expected of an old PC... it is still better then being forced to run Windows

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Xubuntu has/was never my choice because of old hardware. I run Xubuntu on an iBookG4 1GHz w/ 768mb of ram, an Athlon64 3200+ w/ 1gb of ram, and an Athlon64 X2 4600+ w/ 2gb of ram. Xubuntu is wonderful for the fact that it is more efficient, less bloated, smoother than the alternatives, has a logica

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Jonathan Carter wrote: Hi Jani On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 19:09 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote: Unfortunatley we have a bad regression since dapper. The liveCD will not function properly with 128M of RAM and no swap. This I only noticed in qemu and wrongly assumed (hoped) it's specific to i

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

On 11/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 写于 2006-11-07 01:09:04: > > Unfortunatley we have a bad regression since dapper. The liveCD will > > not function properly > > with 128M of RAM and no swap. This I only noticed in qemu and > > wrongly assumed (hoped) it's

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

I think that Xubuntu should get rid of the "old-hardware" selling point. And this new issue it's just something that imho adds up to other old hardware issues. I have a Celeron 300Mhz, 256 MB, 6 GB disk, DYN keyboard and serial mouse. The live cd won't work because of the legacy mouse. Using the al

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 写于 2006-11-07 01:09:04: > Unfortunatley we have a bad regression since dapper. The liveCD will > not function properly > with 128M of RAM and no swap. This I only noticed in qemu and > wrongly assumed (hoped) it's > specific to it, but we get bugreports confirming it on real machi

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

On 11/7/06, Jani Monoses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/7/06, daniele favara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/7/06, Jani Monoses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 11/6/06, Adam Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Jani, > > > >Do we know an official count on the memor

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

On 11/7/06, daniele favara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/7/06, Jani Monoses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 11/6/06, Adam Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Jani,> >Do we know an official count on the memory requirements of the new> live cd? I was interested so I can make the update t

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

On 11/7/06, Jani Monoses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/6/06, Adam Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jani, > >Do we know an official count on the memory requirements of the new > live cd? I was interested so I can make the update to the website in an > attempt to lessen the user c

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

On 11/6/06, Adam Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jani,    Do we know an official count on the memory requirements of the new live cd? I was interested so I can make the update to the website in an attempt to lessen the user confusion. Seems to lose the panel even with 256M and no swap in qem

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Jani,    Do we know an official count on the memory requirements of the new live cd? I was interested so I can make the update to the website in an attempt to lessen the user confusion.-Adam On 11/6/06, Eero Tamminen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi,On Monday 06 November 2006 19:25, Cody Somervill

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Hi, On Monday 06 November 2006 19:25, Cody Somerville wrote: > I'm getting a copy of the live cd this weekend (I don't have a burner of > my own yet) and so I'll play around with it to see if I can identify some > memory hogs. Could you mail to the list the output of following command: --

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Hi Jani On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 19:09 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote: > Unfortunatley we have a bad regression since dapper. The liveCD will > not function properly > with 128M of RAM and no swap. This I only noticed in qemu and wrongly > assumed (hoped) it's > specific to it, but we get bugreports confi

Re: more than 128 M needed for liveCD

I'm getting a copy of the live cd this weekend (I don't have a burner of my own yet) and so I'll play around with it to see if I can identify some memory hogs.Thanks,Cody A.W. Somerville On 11/6/06, Jani Monoses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Unfortunatley we have a bad regression since dapper. The liv

more than 128 M needed for liveCD

Unfortunatley we have a bad regression since dapper. The liveCD will not function properlywith 128M of RAM and no swap. This I only noticed in qemu and wrongly assumed (hoped) it'sspecific to it, but we get bugreports confirming it on real machines. This sadly makes xubuntu lose one of its selling