Am new to this
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| xunil121 Oct 27, 2007 3:50 PM EDT |
I have an old computer running ME, it works perfectly well but its not used. My working model runs XP Pro and is more than adequate for my requirements. Now the question: Is the old one too old for a Linux OS. It has no dvd player, just the basic AC97 audio card, USB 1.1 's, no firewire, sdram 320,and a little hard disk of 20gb. Would I need to modify it too much to be cost effective or can I just instal a very basic Linux OS just to get the feel of it. I really do want to learn how to use a LInux based system for work as well as pleasure. Any comments would be gratefully received Many Thanx Xunil |
| herzeleid Oct 27, 2007 3:57 PM EDT |
While you could certainly learn typical unix admin tasks for work on such a box, you might well find the pleasure aspect somewhat diminished if you can't enjoy 3D FPS games, multimedia and eye candy. You could try something like xubuntu or similar to get an idea - BTW what sort of video hardware does it have? |
| jdixon Oct 27, 2007 7:53 PM EDT |
You don't list the processor speed, so it's difficult to say for certain how well various distros will run, but... Of the mainline distributions, both Debian and Slackware should run fine on that system, though I'd stay away from both Gnome and KDE. Both Slackware and Debian have XFCE, as well as several even less resource intensive window managers. If you want to try the Ubuntu family, take a look at Xubuntu or Fluxbuntu. Of the second line distributions, Damn Small Linux will definitely work, and Zenwalk Vector Linux, and Puppy Linux should work fine. I'm sure there are a number of others you could use. I just installed Puppy Linux on an old AMD K6-2 300 machine with an 8GB hard drive and 320 MB of RAM. It runs as fast as the original Win95 installation. That should give you an idea of what you can accomplish with an older machine. |
| xunil121 Oct 27, 2007 9:37 PM EDT |
Thankyou very much for the help, If I can remember the processor speed is about 800 and the computer is certainly medium fast in the tasks it does, but then I am meticulous in cleaning all the dead wood off it and have nothing running in the background that is not needed. I shall certainly go for one of the smaller Linux programmes to start with and although i have a comple set of Suse disks I shall refrain from using them for the time being. As for games, I am not really into that side of things, Although I sometimes have a go on my Atari ST just to remember how things used to be...lol I will let you know how and if I get on with it. Many thanx from Oxford UK xunil121 |
| herzeleid Oct 27, 2007 10:14 PM EDT |
If you've got decent video (either an nvidia card or built-in intel video) SUSE might work fairly well on that box. My firewall/dns/dhcp server is an old compaq with a 500 Mhz CPU, 8 GB disk and 256 MB RAM running SUSE 10.1. The desktop is fairly responsive with xfce, though I wouldn't care to saddle that box with gnome or kde. |
| dinotrac Oct 28, 2007 3:23 AM EDT |
If you've got, say, a PIII at 800, you'll be able to run Linux with no grief. You can even run KDE or GNOME -- but -- you will need to add memory. 512 MB seems to be the magic point at which KDE becomes nice. Not spectacular, but nice. It won't be zippy, but it won't be bad, either. Fancy graphics depend on your graphics card more than anything, but cheap AGP cards can still be found that will be more than satisfying for lots of cuteness. |
| bigg Oct 28, 2007 6:18 AM EDT |
If all you want to do is play with Linux to get a feel for it, you might also consider installing Virtualbox or VMWare on your newer machine and trying Ubuntu, Mepis, Mandriva or PCLinuxOS. Those are generally considered the friendliest distributions for new users. (Have you played with Live CD's on your faster machine?) I've got a 233 Mhz with 384 MB of RAM that runs Debian Etch just fine (OOo is slow at times). That can require some work, though, so it isn't the best way to learn Linux unless you have a lot of time on your hands and aren't afraid to post questions in forums. |
| Abe Oct 28, 2007 3:52 PM EDT |
I vouch for what Dino said. I run PCLinuxOS 2007 with 512 MB memory and I have no complain. Not even when running OOo which is slow starting any ways (~14 secs 1st time and 8 secs 2nd on this machine). I also run Apache for development only. I say put 512 MB in it and go. You will be surprised how good it will run. My system spec: Model name: Pentium III (Coppermine) Performances Frequency (MHz): 996.810 Cache size: 256 KB |
| techiem2 Oct 28, 2007 4:07 PM EDT |
My Mom's comp is also a PIII-1G but it only has 320MB of RAM. I run SAM 2007 on it and it works fairly nice. A tad faster than PCLinuxOS native since it uses XFCE instead of KDE. |
| xunil121 Oct 29, 2007 4:39 AM EDT |
Thanx once more for your help everyone. I was at a loose end last night so i tried to install xubuntu on my new machine which i downloaded on to a cd, anyway it seemed to be loading ok...i think, there was a light on my desktop similar to the one Kit had on his bonnet but in blue(more tasteful) going from side to side and making little pinging noises. Then the desktop blacked out with just the cursor flashing in the top corner......I waited .....waited.....waited.....made the tea.....waited some more,,,,jeez this was worse than 'High Noon' . enuf I thought, and reloaded windows which when fired up said it would now uninstall xubuntu, and true to its word it did....lol. Am gonna install 'Puppy Linux' on the old machine....so here goes...thanx again xunil121 |
| jdixon Oct 29, 2007 5:54 AM EDT |
While Puppy Linux gets a lot of rave reviews, and I was impressed by it's performance on the K6-2 300, it does have one serious drawback. It runs as root by default, and it's not a simple matter (if possible at all) to configure it to run as a non-root user. I find this a serious enough drawback that I'm not planning to use it on any other machines. I'll probably go with Vector Linux instead. The most important thing in trying Linux on an older machine with limited memory is usually to avoid Gnome and KDE. As others have pointed out, they are both usable with sufficient memory, but in general you'll find XFCE or one of the other window managers a better fit for older hardware. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 29, 2007 6:03 AM EDT |
May I recommend Zenwalk Linux instead? http://www.zenwalk.org/ I've installed that on a friend's PII 200 Mhz machine and works fine. Alternatively, you may also want to look at Debian Etch. It's a lot like Ubuntu but faster, more stable but less (end-user) polish. While I generally agree with the comments above that Gnome and KDE are slower, I installed Debian Etch with Gnome on an old Apple iMac G3 with 192 Mb or RAM and it ran fine. Even OpenOffice.org ran well (though it's very slow to start up). I have no idea how an Apple G3 measures up in speed to a Pentium though. |
| Abe Oct 29, 2007 8:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:Then the desktop blacked out with just the cursor flashing in the top corner......I waited .....waited.....waited.....made the tea.....waited some more,,,,jeez this was worse than 'High Noon' . enuf I thought xunil121, I had similar problem with Kubuntu on mine, try PCLinuxOS and you wont be disappointed. I found out that K/Ubuntu 7.10 doesn't support older hardware as good as PCLinuxOS. Hopefully you have some memory available to add and make 512 MB. I am interested to see how it works out. |
| dinotrac Oct 29, 2007 9:03 AM EDT |
>I found out that K/Ubuntu 7.10 doesn't support older hardware as good as PCLinuxOS. And PCLinuxOS is just "nicer" besides. |
| Abe Oct 29, 2007 9:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:And PCLinuxOS is just "nicer" besides. Nicer and I believe more complete than the other recommendations. |
| jdixon Oct 29, 2007 9:20 AM EDT |
> Nicer and I believe more complete than the other recommendations. And more newbie friendly, AFAICT. However, KDE and limited hardware do not like each other. :( If he can get the memory up to 512 MB or higher, he may be OK, but if not he's going to be better served by a different distro. |
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 29, 2007 9:21 AM EDT |
Try Zenwalk, Vector, Debian or even Ubuntu. I've run all of those on boxes with similar specs. I've had some problem with the Xubuntu installer, too, but I do like it when it runs well. You just might be able to get along OK with Ubuntu and the GNOME desktop. Debian's GNOME implementation is a bit faster, but not radically so. You should try Puppy, especially because it's designed to be run as a live CD. Puppy runs well in 256 MB of RAM, and you have more than that. All of these distros will run better if you have a Linux swap file set up. When you do an install, that will be done automatically. So I'd install one distro and use Puppy as well, just to get a feel for it all. The problem I have with Zenwalk and Vector is that there doesn't seem to be much of an upgrade path. When a new version comes out, I think you pretty much have to reinstall. Wouldn't be a problem, except they seem to have a new one every four months or so. Debian and Ubuntu will "last" you longer, i.e. there will be updates (bugs and security fixes) for a greater period of time. But both Zenwalk and Vector (Puppy, too) are VERY fast, giving your older hardware quite a boost. I think the best thing to do is figure out how to burn your own ISOs to CD, though it seems you can already do that. Make CDs of everything you'd like to try and spend a little time installing one, then the other, until you find something that you like -- and that likes your hardware. |
| number6x Oct 29, 2007 9:25 AM EDT |
I'll second the vote for SAM Linux. It is PCLOS with an XFCE front end. This should work a little better on the older hard ware. You can see one person's adventures in getting Linux to run on older hardware here: http://www.insidesocal.com/click/hardware/the_0_laptop/ http://www.insidesocal.com/click/hardware/the_15_laptop/ http://www.insidesocal.com/click/linux/puppy/ The blogger behind click has even been known to show his face around LXer from time to time. Just so you know, Ubuntu, Debian, PCLOS and most other distros are full blown OS's designed mainly for modern hardware. The Blogger behind click even had trouble with some distros because they were compiled for i686 hardware and above. He couldn't get them to boot on an i586(pentium I). Some of the smaller distros are designed for older hardware with fewer resources. Search around distro watch and read about some of the many distros available: http://distrowatch.com/ When you find one that works, that distro's forums will be the best place for help when you need it. Good luck, and have fun! |
| jdixon Oct 29, 2007 9:27 AM EDT |
> The problem I have with Zenwalk and Vector is that there doesn't seem to be much of an upgrade path. When a new version comes out, I think you pretty much have to reinstall. If you keep separate home and usr/local partitions, and install all of your optional software there, reinstalling isn't anywhere near as much of a pain. I don't do that, but I simply back up my home, usr/local, etc, and var directories before I start. |
| Teron Oct 30, 2007 11:52 AM EDT |
I have a machine with approx. 350-360MB of SDRAM, and all manner of KDE-based distros run just fine. Mine has a bit more processor power than his, though (a P4). If a Ubuntu didn't work, I'd certainly give PCLinuxOS a try. |
| Abe Nov 01, 2007 6:36 AM EDT |
@xunil121, Here is a link for you to read and help you decide on what to try. http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/eldergeek/2007/10/28/linux-... One thing else you could try, which I did think of before, is MiniMe version of PCLinuxOS which one poster to that article has mentioned. Have you tried anything yet? Let us know about your experience so far. :) |
| ColonelPanik Nov 02, 2007 9:51 AM EDT |
xunil121, Try them all, it's free! http://linuxtracker.org They have a huge torrent list. Please let us know what works and what you like. |
| tuxtom Nov 04, 2007 8:36 AM EDT |
I have an original Pentium I 233 ThinkPad w/32 MB RAM that runs DSL and Fluxbuntu just fine. It's not particularly fast, but it is responsive and quite usable. I think XFCE on up would certainly strain my delight. FVWM would probably make it seem 'fast'. Some people say you need at least 256MB Ram and a PIII or later. I say hogwash. You can run and learn linux on just about anything....it just won't necessarily be point-and-click. Think your wireless router, cell phone, TiVo, etc. Certainly ANY pentium-based ssystem will run it just fine. The desktop is simply a pretty backdrop that can frequently get in your way rather than help you. Learning a desktop environment is NOT learning Linux. On the bright side: Once you learn Linux you will be making enough money to buy all the fancy new dual-core machines you want. |
| Abe Nov 04, 2007 11:41 AM EDT |
Quoting:I have an original Pentium I 233 ThinkPad w/32 MB RAM that runs DSL and Fluxbuntu just fine.We know that already and we also know that Linux runs a wristwatch, But those are not enough to learn Linux Quoting:Some people say you need at least 256MB Ram and a PIII or later. I say hogwash. Learning Linux command line is not sufficient any more. Users are interested in learning the whole thing to be as productive on their desktops as running Windows and more. Let's be realistic shall we! |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 04, 2007 1:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:Learning Linux command line is not sufficient any more. You don't need a 256 Mb PIII for GUI either. I've installed Zenwalk on a PII and that ran perfectly. I've installed Debian+GNOME on an iMac G3 with 192 Mb of RAM and that worked fine too. I used to run Ubuntu 5.10 on a (dual) PII with 128 Mb of RAM and that worked too. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 04, 2007 4:45 PM EDT |
I've got a 350MHz K5 with 128MB and 4GB HD. I don't ask it to be fast running full KDE, but when I run Windowlab or OLWM or TWM (I run Debian Sid on it, so it's easy to have lots of window managers to choose from) the _applications_ themselves run just fine. OpenOffice, Konqueror, FireFox, and all the rest. I use it as my backup laptop when the super VAIO is in the shop. I think it's a matter of expectation. I don't expect it to respond like a 2.8GHz P4 does, and so I'm not disappointed. For the most part, people forget that _Windows_ soaks up a lot of the performance of the hardware itself. The Linux kernel isn't much bigger than it was 10 years ago (compiled, as opposed to raw source of course). I wouldn't put it on the 386-33 I first ran Linux on, but that's because Debian doesn't precompile for 386 any more, only 486+. :^) |
| bigg Nov 04, 2007 5:37 PM EDT |
> Users are interested in learning the whole thing to be as productive on their desktops as running Windows and more. To some extent. However, one of the good things about Linux, of interest to many potential users, is that there is variety. If you want a Vista replacement and nothing more, you're stuck with two desktops. I have previously recommended Enlightenment to a Windows user who wanted to see what Linux offers that Windows doesn't. Enlightenment (E16, haven't tried E17) is definitely different, and it is quite fast even on older machines. |
| tuxtom Nov 05, 2007 2:03 PM EDT |
@Abe - I should have been a little more clear. The follow ups to my posting are more in the spirit of what I intended to express. I've run Linux desktops on less resources than my old ThinkPad. Perhaps Linux is becoming as bloated as Windows. Why do we need all these desktop features to be productive? We don't. Open Office (bloated in itself) runs in FVWM. KDE or Gnome are absolutely unnecessary. Are they fun eye-candy and toys? Yes. Essential productivity tools? No. Regarding your command line comment, here's some 'realistic' for ya, tuxtom style: If a user is not learning anything about Linux that is behind their Desktop GUI (which is not in itself Linux), then what is the business case for converting them to Linux? Why don't we campaign for KDE and Gnome desktop environments and ported OSS apps on Windows? That is a more realistic approach. I am certainly not going to provide desktop support to a bunch of new users looking for an out-of-the-box consumer experience. If someone is sincerely interested like the original poster, sure, but if they just want to point and click their way into a corner then I'm not gonna work with them. That is the realm of Microsoft. I am VERY happy that all that desktop support is in the hands the MCSE certified bunch. Sure, it would be wonderful to have the whole world using Linux, but would it really? You wanna take all those inane calls asking how to start Internet Explorer or how to find My Computer and explaining the differences? If all Linux is after is numbers of users then Linux is only moving closer to BECOMING Windows...which includes ALL the bad that comes with it. Seriously, if that is the goal then call / 'My Computer' and rename Firefox to IE in the distros...and ask "Are you sure?" with every mouse gesture. Average users don't care what they use, and I frankly don't care what users use. I use Linux, and other people that I work with and respect use Linux. That is all that matters. I already profit from my knowledge of Linux...knowledge that worked very long and hard to obtain and continue to do so. Adding a slew of new Linux desktop users is not going to change my revenue stream, except possibly for the worse. If you happen to be in the Desktop Support business your point of view might be quite different... |
| herzeleid Nov 05, 2007 2:57 PM EDT |
tuxtom: As for the flood of clueless new linux users which you seem to dread, I say "bring them on!" The more, the merrier. Building market share and momentum is IMHO a good thing - I'm not sure why you seem to feel that mainstream linux adoption would threaten your income - care to elaborate? |
| Abe Nov 05, 2007 4:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:I should have been a little more clear. The follow ups to my posting are more in the spirit of what I intended to express.Thanks for the clarification. Reading your post leads me to believe that, in you perspective, Linux should belong to IT elitists. Like everyone else, you are entitled to your opinion, on the other hand, I believe the majority of IT professionals and computer users see computers these days as commodity tools. Linux is no longer defined as the OS, Linux is understood to include the kernel and all the F/OSS tools, utilities and most importantly applications. Quoting:I've run Linux desktops on less resources than my old ThinkPad. Perhaps Linux is becoming as bloated as Windows. Why do we need all these desktop features to be productive? We don't.Like I mentioned before, you can run Linux on the smallest and largest devices and computers, but that would only be a part of what people need and use. Running many other productive F/OSS applications, tools and utilities is a whole different part. Linux is not for IT professionals only any more, it is becoming ubiquitous. Quoting:Open Office (bloated in itself) runs in FVWM. KDE or Gnome are absolutely unnecessary. Are they fun eye-candy and toys? Yes. Essential productivity tools? No.I don't agree with you assessment. KDE, GNOME, OpenOffice etc... are applications with capabilities, features with user friendliness added to them for the computer novice to be comfortable using a computer. Bloat is too much code that does little. You can't call them bloats since they are highly beneficial, very useful and productive software code. That is what is making Linux ubiquitous. Quoting:If a user is not learning anything about Linux that is behind their Desktop GUI (which is not in itself Linux), then what is the business case for converting them to Linux?I think this statement is the product of your own unique definition of Linux. Majority of people these days look at Linux as being the OS and the numerous applications that come with it. Linux is no longer the kernel only any more. I really don't think I need to respond to the rest of what you said since it is totally based on your perspective of Linux being the OS for IT elitist. That I totally disagree with and on the contrary, I strongly believe that Linux is for the masses along with IT professionals. |
You cannot post until you login.