<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Sep 8, 2014 8:56 AM, "Owen Taylor" <<a href="mailto:otaylor@redhat.com">otaylor@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 17:52 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:<br>
> > On 09/05/2014 05:49 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Yes, but you're getting that memory back "free" by the extra address space<br>
> > > opened up on x86_64. Look at your free space numbers. You're given, albeit<br>
> > > small, more free memory on x86_64.<br>
> ><br>
> > Well I just realized you're talking about 2GB here, but with low RAM prices and<br>
> > systems coming with 4GB standard I don't think 2GB is a fair starting point.<br>
><br>
> We decided in the last workstation WG IRC meeting that we're going to<br>
> list the RAM requirements as "2GB or more". Yes, 4GB (or more) is the<br>
> reasonable configuration for our target users, in these days of $10/GB<br>
> memory, but:<br>
><br>
> * Allocating more than 2GB to a VM on a 4GB system is difficult.<br>
><br>
> * There are some people who have old systems that, for whatever reason,<br>
> would be hard to increase the memory on.<br>
><br>
> * Listing our memory requirements as 4GB sounds like Fedora is much<br>
> more memory intensive than competitors, and it isn't.<br>
><br>
> So, given that, the question I was trying to answer is whether if<br>
> someone is trying to use Fedora Workstation on an actual 2GB system,<br>
> whether using i686 is an advantage. The answer seems to be that if you<br>
> are actually using Fedora day-to-day on such a system (not doing a quick<br>
> test in a VM), then you would be better off using i686.<br>
><br>
Since no one mentioned this, perhaps for good reason, I thought I'd bring up the possibility of supporting x32 instead of i686. <br>
IMHO, however, RAM isn't going to be a concern for the majority of the target audience.</p>