Anybody use Linux? For old hardware, which distro?
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: Interesting power problem
Next: NETBOOK VS LAPTOP
From: Mike Easter on 2 Jun 2010 18:15 RayLopez99 wrote: > Yes, it was 512 MB ram. Or it may be 256 MB. There is a gigantic difference between those two. You absolutely have to get crystal clear on how much ram. > BTW it has a 100 GB hard drive. -- Mike Easter
From: Mike Easter on 2 Jun 2010 18:18 RayLopez99 wrote: > Nasty is a dialup? Another reason I fear Linux, since Windows XP is > recognizing the Dell built-in internal modem no problem. Why trash > WIndows for Linux if Windows is working? This is playing in my mind > now... Do you have access to a Win98se disk? > This Linux idea (it's the third time I've toyed with Linux--once in > the 1990s I actually had NT dual booted with RHAT Linux!) is starting > to scare me...maybe I should back off, unless I get more and better > info. So far we aren't sure about the ram. That makes a lot of difference between 256 and 512. -- Mike Easter
From: Frank Steinmetzger on 2 Jun 2010 18:15 RayLopez99 wrote: > On Jun 2, 4:32 pm, David Brown <da...(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> > wrote: >> On 02/06/2010 14:36, RayLopez99 wrote: >> >> > Thinking of using on an old 1998 laptop PC that presently has a >> > Pentium II, with a built in generic Dell modem, USB mouse, 512k RAM >> > (!), DVD/CD, running Windows XP fine now (very slow), some distro of >> > Linux. >> >> I take it you mean 512 MB ram? Otherwise the machine could barely run >> DOS... >> > > Yes, it was 512 MB ram. Or it may be 256 MB. In any event, it's > enough to run Windows XP, which is pretty demanding, so Linux should > (I hope) run fine...but which distro? I could run Gentoo with KDE 3 on a Pentium III with 256 MB. KDE 3 took ~120MB after boot (that's half of Windows XP) but it was not very fluid. And no, I'm not suggesting to install Gentoo on your friend's laptop. ;-) So RAM may not be a big problem here, but speed definitely is. You also said your friend doesn't even know what a USB stick was, so I gather she is not very computer-literate. This yields to the following criteria: - you need a small, fast graphical environment (such as LXDE or XFCE) - you can't necessarily use something much simpler, like Openbox, for it doesn't provide much of a modern desktop "user experience" with today's conveniences - you need something that is easy to use and manage I don't have personal experience with it, but my conclusion would reveal something like Xubuntu (that's Ubuntu but with Xfce instead of Gnome). Oh and something else: having everything on Google servers does not save you from needing to process it. Had I to chose between an office suite and a javascript-based web application on a 90 MHz CPU, I'd go for native machine code, it's just faster and may need less memory. Also, laptops from that time don't have much screen resolution (I'd guess it has 800x600 at most), which is another point against the browser way. OpenOffice could not be the ultimate answer here. There are smaller things available, such as AbiWord or Gnumeric. -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' Mozart ging nach Wien, dort heiratete er und wurde arm.
From: Mike Easter on 2 Jun 2010 18:21 RayLopez99 wrote: > One poster* suggests "Freespire" for low RAM systems--ever heard of > it? I've used Freespire and liked it, but I had more resources than you do; and freespire hasn't changed since 2007 Nov. off Ub 7.04 + kde. -- Mike Easter
From: Mike Easter on 2 Jun 2010 18:29
RayLopez99 wrote: > WAIT. I did that, and documented my efforts a COLA. Puppy Linux > failed to recognize my CD-ROM drive. Now my Windows Pentium II > desktop is a paperweight (and not a good one), whereas before it was > running WIndows 2000 fine. Puppy did *not* break your old box or its old optical. > No Puppy Linux for me. In fairness, perhaps it's OK, since the CD-ROM > was nearing its end of life, so we can blame it on a hardware dying > problem. But I'm not sure. So, on top of you not knowing exactly whether you have 256 or 512, we have to deal with some kind of crazy superstitions? This is getting to be more difficulty. > Exactly. This laptop is from 1998--probably the BIOS is too old for > USB booting. That is highly likely. > I must burn on CD/DVD only. So please recommend one--what about > Freespire 2.0? Freespire (KDE + Ub 7.04) will run on 512 OK. I would recommend something lighter for less. I would choose Lubuntu 10.04 over the old freespire. My first choice is the newest Puppy for good reasons. My second choice is Lubuntu 10.04 if your superstitions are going to dominate the equation. No matter what, there are potential problems with that modem and possibly the USB mouse on the old hardware. The modem is probably an old winmodem that will be 'difficult' for someone who isn't experienced with setting up a modem in linux. Going to a lot of trouble to make a winmodem work seems like paying a lot for something worth very little. -- Mike Easter |