Comments on: Ubuntu vs Windows Hardware Requirements

By: Darael

Darael — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:33:27 +0000

Two things. One is that you’ve actually quoted the Windows 7 /minimum/ system requirements. According to https://help.ubuntu.com/10.10/installation-guide/i386/minimum-hardware-reqts.html the /minimum/ RAM for Ubuntu – which is the appropriate statistic to compare, after all – is in fact 64MB.

Second is that, according to the same page, the recommended amount of RAM for Ubuntu Maverick is 512MB, rather than 256. It is interesting that the official installation guide should disagree with the release notes. Note that this is still less than the minimum for Windows Seven.

By: tom

tom — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:37:03 +0000

ok, last Ubuntu for me was 9.04 which ran “ok” but was sluggish on my Dual core 1.8GHz processor with 481 MB RAM,
well now I use Debian from past 6 months.. which is just efficient, fast and in short.. awesome!

Ubuntu for me is “bloated”, but is it bloat to have all the “nice bling”?.. depends on the person’s opinion..

Anyways Windows 7 wouldn’t even run on such low ram!!
GNU/Linux FTW!

By: Ariel

Ariel — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:12:23 +0000

The units on the X-axis of that graph are MB of RAM.

By: Prakash

Prakash — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:31:51 +0000

MHz is the processor speed recommended by the Operating System vendor.
MB is how much RAM is recommended by the Operating System Vendor

By: Proper

Proper — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:02:48 +0000

What are the units for the x-axis of your Operating System comparison graph?

Is it MHz for processor clock speeds?

Is it MB for how much RAM used?

By: Dario

Dario — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:11:21 +0000

i installed 9.10 on a 933MHZ pentium3 with 512 mb of ram and a agp2x gforce 4 (64MB) at 1680×1050 and it ran flawlessly, compiz (with propie. drivers) and everything worked fine. The efects ovbiously didnt run SMOOOOOOTH but they were fast enought to be usable.
Ram usage was high and used some swap (compcache only) but never slowed some much that bothered me

By: Jan Wildeboer

Jan Wildeboer — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:12:10 +0000

Did you actually try to install and run Ubuntu on a 256MB RAM machine with a 300MHz processor?

Minimal Requirements are not even that IMHO.

By: Tommy

Tommy — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:48:30 +0000

Windows knows how to market their OS pretty good. They claim it’s a faster OS then XP and Vista. Ya for sure slap on a QUAD Core processor with 6 gigs of ram and any OS will be super fast. And windows is still based on NTFS a 10 year old filesystem. So I really don’t see an advantage of using windows 7!

By: Manish Sinha

Manish Sinha — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:38:00 +0000

Prakash,

Correct me if I am wrong, but Ubuntu 9.10 doesn’t run properly on 256MB RAM. 512MB is the recommended from my side if something productive needs to be done.