slackware-friendly netbook
in [Slackware]
|
Prev: Slack 13 breaks ss
Next: What's the point?
From: Handover Phist on 28 Mar 2010 20:44 Lew Pitcher : > 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/ And I've run Slackware on an old 486 laptop with 20 meg of ram. I believe that was either 10.2 or 11.0, but I would be willing to bet it would still go on old hardware with little ram. -- Heavy, adj.: Seduced by the chocolate side of the force. www.websterscafe.com
From: Giovanni on 29 Mar 2010 04:05 On 03/29/10 02:44, Handover Phist wrote: > > And I've run Slackware on an old 486 laptop with 20 meg of ram. I > believe that was either 10.2 or 11.0, but I would be willing to bet it > would still go on old hardware with little ram. > There are any problem if you do not use X. I started with 10.0 and right now I'm running 12.1 on a 33Mhz 486DX with only 8 MByte RAM. Its only purpose is as tape server for backups but it works perfectly. I had to setup a network installation environment for startup, but now i can go on with upgrades from CD/DVD mounted via network. Ciao Giovanni -- A computer is like an air conditioner, it stops working when you open Windows. < http://giovanni.homelinux.net/ >
From: notbob on 30 Mar 2010 09:29 On 2010-03-30, Pirillo <remailer(a)reece.net.au> wrote: > > It's not only about memory and processor power. Some of these netbooks > have no moving parts.... Some, not all. My Asus eee comes with a 160G hdd and is most certainly a "netbook". nb
From: Michael Black on 30 Mar 2010 10:03 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, notbob wrote: > On 2010-03-30, Pirillo <remailer(a)reece.net.au> wrote: >> >> It's not only about memory and processor power. Some of these netbooks >> have no moving parts.... > > Some, not all. My Asus eee comes with a 160G hdd and is most > certainly a "netbook". > The solid-state only netbooks didn't last very long, maybe about a year. Now, it looks like few if any do not have a hard drive. It wasn't clear if they switched to get around the issue of all that writing to the solid state drive, or if they did it for marketing, nobody really wanted something with "only" 8gigs of "hard drive". Michael
From: Martin on 30 Mar 2010 10:24
On 03/30/2010 03:03 PM, Michael Black wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, notbob wrote: > >> On 2010-03-30, Pirillo <remailer(a)reece.net.au> wrote: >>> >>> It's not only about memory and processor power. Some of these netbooks >>> have no moving parts.... >> >> Some, not all. My Asus eee comes with a 160G hdd and is most >> certainly a "netbook". >> > The solid-state only netbooks didn't last very long, maybe about a year. > Now, it looks like few if any do not have a hard drive. > > It wasn't clear if they switched to get around the issue of all that > writing to the solid state drive, or if they did it for marketing, > nobody really wanted something with "only" 8gigs of "hard drive". > > Michael > What was the problem with solid-state drives on netbooks? I'm not sure I understand the last couple of posts. -- regards Martin |