Suse Linux 10 system requirements

[GraemeM]

Hi, I was looking at Suse Linux 10 system requirements, and it said:

* Pentium III 500MHz or higher (Pentium 4 2.4GHz or higher, any AMD, AMD64, or Intel EM64T processor recommended)
* 256MB RAM (512MB recommended)
* 800MB of available disk space (2.5GB recommended)
* 800x600 display resolution (1024x768 or higher recommended)

The computer I'm considering installing this on is only 600mhz. Now this is above the minimum but far from the recommended. Why is there such a large difference between the required and recommended? Do you think the computer would run it fine?

Thanks,
Graeme

[doctorgonzo]

Depends on what you want to use it for. The higher recommendations are for a graphical shell like KDE or Gnome; if you just want to use it as a headless server, without any GUI, then that computer will be just fine.

[GraemeM]

No I want to use a GUI. Although I don't plan on playing games or anything, I want to have the main itnerface. It won't be my main computer, I'll mainly use it for learning Linux/Unix, some web devlopment (internal server), and some downloading. I know the computer I'm thinking of runs XP fine, but maybe this Linux requires mroe.

And I wouldn't think it woudl require 500mhz just to run it without graphical features. I've read that Unix can run on a 486, and isn't Linux basically Unix with a GUI and other features to make it better for home users?

[ghost2003]

Originally Posted by GraemeM isn't Linux basically Unix with a GUI and other features to make it better for home users?

Nope.
Linux, like all other unix originally used CLI shells (and still does). The X project was created to add a GUI to unix systems with a graphical shell. There are lots of linux distros these days that add lots of fancy graphical stuff. Its a big waste of time.
Anyway, back to the original question, like doctorgonzo said you will only need high specs if you plan on running a full desktop. If you want a GUI install a lightweight window manager like fluxbox or windowmaker (go with wmii or ion if you want it really light).
You said you wanted to learn unix, you wont do that with a GUI, you need to play arround with command lines.

[GraemeM]

well can't i just open the linux shell adn that would basically be unix? I know some unix from using secure shell client to connect to a remote unix host, but would like to try it on my own machine. I want to be able to use the GUI for certain things but also try the command line for some things.

So anyways, I didn't really get what you said. With a PIII 600, just over 300mb of Ram and a old ATI 128 vid card, I should be able to run a GUI, just not top of the line graphics?

I still don't get the recommended 2.4 ghz, that's pretty intense, especially considering Windows Vista Premium (which is supposed to be very graphically intense) only recommends minimum 1 ghz.

[faulkner132]

If you want to use Linux with a GUI, you should use a machine which is capable of running Windows XP competently. There are "lightweight" GUI's available, but I would not recommend these to someone with no Linux experience.

[glc]

I'm running Kubuntu - which uses the full KDE desktop - on 500 MHz and 256 ram with a 4 meg PCI video card. It's far from a speed demon, but it works. It runs about like XP with all visual effects enabled would on that machine.

[GraemeM]

Originally Posted by faulkner132 If you want to use Linux with a GUI, you should use a machine which is capable of running Windows XP competently. There are "lightweight" GUI's available, but I would not recommend these to someone with no Linux experience.

the one I'm talking about runs XP fine (although it's still nowhere near that 2.4 ghz that was mentioned).

Originally Posted by glc I'm running Kubuntu - which uses the full KDE desktop - on 500 MHz and 256 ram with a 4 meg PCI video card. It's far from a speed demon, but it works. It runs about like XP with all visual effects enabled would on that machine.

Well the PC I'm thinking of would be slighlty better than that (with a far better video card). But do you think that Suse would be any more system intensive than Kubuntu?

[glc]

It all depends what GUI you install. Different GUI's have different footprints.

[GraemeM]

Originally Posted by glc It all depends what GUI you install. Different GUI's have different footprints.

and any decent Linux distro should give me a choice of GUI?

[ghost2003]

Originally Posted by GraemeM and any decent Linux distro should give me a choice of GUI?

Any distro can run any desktop/window manager, you just need to install it. Most distros should give you the option when you install (some include more packages than others in their install disks, but most have KDE or gnome). If they dont have what you want then you can just install whatever you want after. Its probably better to not have it install anything then install exactly what you want later.

[GraemeM]

Okay thanks a lot for your replies.

One final question, which GUI do you recommend
a.) for a powerful computer
b.) for a weaker computer like I mentioned.

Thanks again.

[faulkner132]

I prefer GNOME.

GNOME isn't as flashy as KDE which looks and acts a lot like XP.
KDE will require more resources but you will not see a significant improvement of one over the other on either machine you mention.

Honestly, try both and make a call on which you like better... or just continue to use both.

[GraemeM]

alrite thanks