jdharm
09-09-2001, 03:12 AM
If this is a copy of my previous message, sorry for the double post, but the link to the first one keeps going to someone else's message. Don't know if its my machine or the forum's.
As I was saying: From what I have learned from starting to dabble with linux I thought I understood that linux was the better OS for older machines because it was simpler and more compact, therefore more efficient on a given computer that Windows would be on the same machine. Then how is it that I can squeeze Win98 on a 250MB hd, but I need at least a gig for Madrake7? Is there any way to trim the fat from the install and strip the OS down to the bare essentials? Is that a bad idea? I won't mess with it if the more experienced among you think I shouldn't.
As I was saying: From what I have learned from starting to dabble with linux I thought I understood that linux was the better OS for older machines because it was simpler and more compact, therefore more efficient on a given computer that Windows would be on the same machine. Then how is it that I can squeeze Win98 on a 250MB hd, but I need at least a gig for Madrake7? Is there any way to trim the fat from the install and strip the OS down to the bare essentials? Is that a bad idea? I won't mess with it if the more experienced among you think I shouldn't.