no you can't. That would require 1.6mb of ram for a single frame. In reality you need lots and lots of frames with hardware decoding plus network overhead.
Not to mention that CPU would be way to slow to run anything but the bare Linux kernel (also the kernel requires 8mb)
Edit: I misread. I thought you were talking about computer memory not video memory. That makes more sense. Although your 30 year old CPU isn't going to be running VNC or Spice any time soon. (Your welcome to prove me wrong)
Different time I suppose. I ran Linux on a old machine with a Pentium and 32mb of ram with systemd about 2 years ago. Sadly it died and now it won't turn on.
Megabytes, a thousand of which make a gigabyte. Chrome in my machine right now is taking over one gigabyte of memory, that alone is using more than 8 times what OP wants the whole system to. It's definitely an ask for low memory, almost embedded levels of ram.
Chrome is actually doing a lot of work to display modern webpages though. A thin client only needs to receive a video stream and send inputs to a server. That can be done with an extremely low memory footprint. The Steam Link only had 512MB of RAM and it actually ran a steam client (which contains embedded chromium) instead of acting as a pure thin client.
I wouldn't be against something that needs 1gb or 4gb. Of course it's different hardware class, but if it actually does a better job, it would be fine.
Although I suspect for a thin client, 512mb would be more than enough and adding more wouldn't improve much of anything.