<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ubuntu vs Windows Hardware Requirements</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements</link>
	<description>Technology, Linux, Photography, Cars, India and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 13:51:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: AK Agarwal</title>
		<link>http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements/comment-page-1#comment-314419</link>
		<dc:creator>AK Agarwal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:25:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cityblogger.com/?p=1058#comment-314419</guid>
		<description>URGENT Pls
----------

I want to switch from windows to free open software

Just please guide me which one to use - Ubuntu or Debian or Linux on my netbook (pls assume current models / specifications)

Which is easiest to switch to, which is more user friendly for novices, which has most drivers for various peripherals, which is faster

Pls guide about the choice among above or even a different alternative

Regards</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>URGENT Pls<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-</p>
<p>I want to switch from windows to free open software</p>
<p>Just please guide me which one to use &#8211; Ubuntu or Debian or Linux on my netbook (pls assume current models / specifications)</p>
<p>Which is easiest to switch to, which is more user friendly for novices, which has most drivers for various peripherals, which is faster</p>
<p>Pls guide about the choice among above or even a different alternative</p>
<p>Regards</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Our batch</title>
		<link>http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements/comment-page-1#comment-313965</link>
		<dc:creator>Our batch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cityblogger.com/?p=1058#comment-313965</guid>
		<description>Linux is Great.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Linux is Great.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darael</title>
		<link>http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements/comment-page-1#comment-308682</link>
		<dc:creator>Darael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cityblogger.com/?p=1058#comment-308682</guid>
		<description>Two things.  One is that you&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two things.  One is that you&#8217;ve actually quoted the Windows 7 /minimum/ system requirements.  According to <a href="https://help.ubuntu.com/10.10/installation-guide/i386/minimum-hardware-reqts.html" rel="nofollow">https://help.ubuntu.com/10.10/installation-guide/i386/minimum-hardware-reqts.html</a> the /minimum/ RAM for Ubuntu &#8211; which is the appropriate statistic to compare, after all &#8211;  is in fact 64MB.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom</title>
		<link>http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements/comment-page-1#comment-308509</link>
		<dc:creator>tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:37:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cityblogger.com/?p=1058#comment-308509</guid>
		<description>ok, last Ubuntu for me was 9.04 which ran &quot;ok&quot; 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 &quot;bloated&quot;, but is it bloat to have all the &quot;nice bling&quot;?.. depends on the person&#039;s opinion..

Anyways Windows 7 wouldn&#039;t even run on such low ram!!
GNU/Linux FTW!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ok, last Ubuntu for me was 9.04 which ran &#8220;ok&#8221; but was sluggish on my Dual core 1.8GHz processor with 481 MB RAM,<br />
well now I use Debian from past 6 months.. which is just efficient, fast and in short.. awesome! </p>
<p>Ubuntu for me is &#8220;bloated&#8221;, but is it bloat to have all the &#8220;nice bling&#8221;?.. depends on the person&#8217;s opinion..</p>
<p>Anyways Windows 7 wouldn&#8217;t even run on such low ram!!<br />
GNU/Linux FTW!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ariel</title>
		<link>http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements/comment-page-1#comment-305345</link>
		<dc:creator>Ariel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cityblogger.com/?p=1058#comment-305345</guid>
		<description>The units on the X-axis of that graph are MB of RAM.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The units on the X-axis of that graph are MB of RAM.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Prakash</title>
		<link>http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements/comment-page-1#comment-305321</link>
		<dc:creator>Prakash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cityblogger.com/?p=1058#comment-305321</guid>
		<description>MHz is the processor speed recommended by the Operating System vendor.
MB is how much RAM is recommended by the Operating System Vendor</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MHz is the processor speed recommended by the Operating System vendor.<br />
MB is how much RAM is recommended by the Operating System Vendor</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Proper</title>
		<link>http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements/comment-page-1#comment-305317</link>
		<dc:creator>Proper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:02:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cityblogger.com/?p=1058#comment-305317</guid>
		<description>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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What are the units for the x-axis of your Operating System comparison graph?</p>
<p>Is it MHz for processor clock speeds?</p>
<p>Is it MB for how much RAM used?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dario</title>
		<link>http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements/comment-page-1#comment-305149</link>
		<dc:creator>Dario</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:11:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cityblogger.com/?p=1058#comment-305149</guid>
		<description>i installed 9.10 on a 933MHZ pentium3 with 512 mb of ram and a agp2x gforce 4 (64MB) at 1680x1050 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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i installed 9.10 on a 933MHZ pentium3 with 512 mb of ram and a agp2x gforce 4 (64MB) at 1680&#215;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.<br />
Ram usage was high and used some swap (compcache only) but never slowed some much that bothered me</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jan Wildeboer</title>
		<link>http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements/comment-page-1#comment-305142</link>
		<dc:creator>Jan Wildeboer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cityblogger.com/?p=1058#comment-305142</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you actually try to install and run Ubuntu on a 256MB RAM machine with a 300MHz processor?</p>
<p>Minimal Requirements are not even that IMHO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tommy</title>
		<link>http://cityblogger.com/archives/2009/12/21/ubuntu-vs-windows-hardware-requirements/comment-page-1#comment-305141</link>
		<dc:creator>Tommy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:48:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cityblogger.com/?p=1058#comment-305141</guid>
		<description>Windows knows how to market their OS pretty good. They claim it&#039;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&#039;t see an advantage of using windows 7!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Windows knows how to market their OS pretty good. They claim it&#8217;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&#8217;t see an advantage of using windows 7!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

