slackware-friendly netbook
in [Slackware]
|
Prev: Slack 13 breaks ss
Next: What's the point?
From: Martin on 27 Mar 2010 09:08 On 03/27/2010 12:58 PM, heavytull wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:33:26 +0000, Martin wrote: > > >>> I tested once a lenovo net book running windows xp. It was so slow that >>> I was wondering if it could actually run KDE4 with decent smoothness. >> >> I'm not sure netbooks in general are designed to carry the weight of >> KDE4. I've managed to configure most of the things that I need from a >> netbook without GUI: mutt, emacs (gnus, org-mode), irssi, nethack, >> mp3blaster, etc. > > Maybe Xfce will suit. Yes, when I have to use GUI, I start xfce or fluxbox. XFCE is in my opinion the best compromise between functionality and resource efficiency, but on the other hand, fluxbox, if properly configured, can be a real killer. -- regards Martin
From: Kurt on 28 Mar 2010 08:46 > > .... Has anyone got a netbook that works fine with Slackware? Lenovo N200 with a Celeron M 1.6Ghz. Ran Win Blows XP pretty anemically. Put Slack 12.2 and then Slack 13.0 on and it runs a heck of a lot better now. Much, much crisper and faster. Going from 12.2 to 13.0 was even better except I hated the look of KDE 4.X. Took me a couple of weeks to figure out how to get it to look and feel like 3.5. I am isolated out in the boondocks with no other users nearby to seek direct help from. Only other issue with my Lenovo was the wireless didn't work out of the box with either version of Slack. After futzing with it for awhile, it dawned on me to do a search and sure enough it was a known problem with the Lenovo laptops of this kind. I was directed to http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/b43 where a fix was posted for the b43 wireless chipset and all is well. I had purchased the laptop originally to run a couple of WinBlows apps I can't get going under WINE but thought to get another drive and try to load Slack on it. I am inexperienced and didn't think I could get very far but as you can see, I was able to get the kinks out of it. I have fewer native WinBlows apps left to run as I've been having more and more success with WINE and the XP drive sits in a box that I take out and exercise only rarely now. Booting it up is exorbitantly long process as opposed to Slack. Slack with ext4 runs so much better on this machine as opposed to XP. I have a work laptop, a Fujitsu T4220 Lifebook that is a dastardly nice machine. Danged thing had a security chip in it and wouldn't let me load my own apps or connect peripherals. Has a stinking security chip in it so I couldn't even drop a CLEAN hard drive in it and load a LICENSED copy of XP tablet on it! Thing is that the stupid idiot didn't recognize Slack as foreign and it loaded just fine and everything ran right out of the box except I haven't explored the touchscreen or the fingerprint device! That machine was pretty pricey though. You are doing the right thing. Ask around and see what folks have had good luck with. If you get into a kink, do a search and you might be able to find a known fix like I did with my Lenovo. Best regards all, Kurt
From: Douglas Mayne on 28 Mar 2010 11:13 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:56:10 +0000, Pirillo wrote: > On Mar 23, 9:51 pm, LostInTheLoop <bump...(a)ro.und> wrote: >> .Martin., on 03/23/2010 09:35 PM, wrote: >> >> > I am thinking of getting a netbook and would like to hear your >> > recommendations. Has anyone got a netbook that works fine with >> > Slackware? > > As much as I love Slackware, it was never intended to work on that kind > of hardware > AFAIK, Slackware runs on Intel CPUs and requires a minimum of 64M. How is an Atom-based netbook with 512M to 2G RAM out of spec? I am scratching my head because this "class" of PC is clearly more powerful than many computers which I have used in the past. IMO, Atom is more powerful than any single CPU Pentium 3 based computer. > > and I don't know of PV tackling this issue in the short > term, but who knows, he's so seceretive. > > I think it's better to use the OSes that were specifically written for > embedded devices like Android or Moblin, alternatively Netbsd is very > lightweight and works on everything. > ? That sounds harder than figuring out how to get standard Slackware installed. > Note: Comments inline. As I noted in my response on this thread, I was surprised that even the single core Atom 270 has the horsepower to acceptably run standard software (YMMV). Here is some other standard software that works on a netbook: Firefox 3.6.2 Open Office 3.2 Lotus Notes 8.5.1 Gimp 2.6.8 The external connectors allow connecting external keyboard, mice, monitors, and sound. IMO, the only thing which is somewhat limiting at all is that Atom CPU is clearly less powerful than Intel "core" CPUs, and will run circles around Atom for certain numerically intensive operations. However, for the standard user, Atom may be sufficient. p.s. Here is another screen shot of my netbook running Google Earth. This is a simulated view of the Tetons as viewed from near Driggs, Idaho: http://www.xmission.com/~ddmayne/misc/bp.2010-02-22.01.html -- Douglas Mayne
From: Jerry Peters on 28 Mar 2010 15:37 Pirillo <remailer(a)reece.net.au> wrote: > On Mar 23, 9:51 pm, LostInTheLoop <bump...(a)ro.und> wrote: >> .Martin., on 03/23/2010 09:35 PM, wrote: >> >> > I am thinking of getting a netbook and would like to hear your >> > recommendations. Has anyone got a netbook that works fine with >> > Slackware? > > As much as I love Slackware, it was never intended to work on that > kind of hardware and I don't know of PV tackling this issue in the > short term, but who knows, he's so seceretive. > > I think it's better to use the OSes that were specifically written for > embedded devices like Android or Moblin, alternatively Netbsd is very > lightweight and works on everything. > > I beg to differ, Slackware has been running just fine on my Aspire 1 for over a year now. I don't know if the camera or microphone works because I've never tried them, but everything else works quite nicely. Even suspend works, to both disk and ram. Jerry
From: Lew Pitcher on 28 Mar 2010 19:43
On March 28, 2010 11:13, in alt.os.linux.slackware, doug(a)localhost.localnet wrote: > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:56:10 +0000, Pirillo wrote: > >> On Mar 23, 9:51 pm, LostInTheLoop <bump...(a)ro.und> wrote: >>> .Martin., on 03/23/2010 09:35 PM, wrote: >>> >>> > I am thinking of getting a netbook and would like to hear your >>> > recommendations. Has anyone got a netbook that works fine with >>> > Slackware? >> >> As much as I love Slackware, it was never intended to work on that kind >> of hardware >> > AFAIK, Slackware runs on Intel CPUs and requires a minimum of 64M. FWIW, Slackware runs on 32bit Intel-class CPUs (Slackware) 64bit Intel-class CPUs (Slackware-64) S390 Mainframes (Slack/390) and ARM RISC processors (Slackware for ARM_ For details, see http://www.slackware.com/changelog/ -- Lew Pitcher Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576 Me: http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | Just Linux: http://justlinux.ca/ ---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------ |