Re: mini distros for old-but-not-dead PCs

From: Robert Heller (heller_at_deepsoft.com)
Date: 10/05/03 

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:09:27 +0000

  David <thunderbolt01@netscape.net>,
  In a message on Sat, 04 Oct 2003 14:29:34 GMT, wrote :

D> Pedro Figueiredo wrote:
D> > Greetings,
D> >
D> > I have this old PC (Pentium 133Mhz / 32Mb RAM) running
D> > win98... I know they make PDAs and calculators faster than
D> > that nowadays, but I'm doing fine with it for what I need, as
D> > I use it almost exclusively for accessing the internet (www,
D> > mail, usenet and irc), text editing, and old games. Old as in
D> > zork and moria, that is, not as in Fifa2002. By keeping the
D> > windows instalation pretty clean and tuned up I can even run
D> > some heavier stuff (Fireworks and Dreamweaver, for instance)
D> > at pretty acceptable speeds.
D> >
D> > Now, I've recently installed Linux (a new Red Hat distro) on
D> > my other (and recent) PC and I'm really delighted. Having read
D> > all over the place that Linux will do wonders with older
D> > machines, I'm tempted to drop windows altogether and get Linux
D> > running on this oldie as well. I've tried a bunch of different
D> > distros from cover CDs and such, but I'm having an hard time
D> > finding something that works for me. Red Hat won't install
D> > with only 32Mb of ram, Debian get installed but can only run
D> > in text mode, others do run but are simply too slow. I suppose
D> > I could fine-tune one of these if I knew what I was doing, but
D> > alas, I'm no wizard, so I came to the conclusion that perhaps
D> > I should try one of those mini distros for older PCs... But
D> > they just look, well, boring and dumb. It seems that there's
D> > no middle term: I can only find either 3-diskets text mode
D> > distros, or heavy 6 CDs all-package-included ones, that won't
D> > run on my PC. I understand I can't possibly run the newest
D> > KDE, but I do expect to find something that looks at least as
D> > good as windows. Preferably, running much better than it, too.
D> > But then again that goes without saying.
D> >
D> > All in all, would any kind soul gently point me to a decent
D> > distro that's not-too-ugly, runs on old machines, easy to
D> > install, and suitable for beginners? Is the such thing, to
D> > start with? The answer is worth extra points if the_thing is
D> > available for free.
D>
D> Try Slackware and stay away from KDE and GNOME.
D> It isn't classified as a "Newbie" distro but it was the first
D> distro I used. By having a second system you shouldn't have any
D> troubles finding help if you can't find the answer. Just take
D> your time and read the different screens and you shouldn't have
D> any problems. You only need disc 1 & 2 for a complete install and
D> you also get the Slackware-Live CD which is on disc 2.

*I've* installed RedHat 6.2 on my 50mhz '486 Laptop (32meg of RAM, new
6gig hard drive). Works just fine. I *don't* use Gnome or KDE (not
even on my K6-500/128meg desktop box). FVWM2 is quite happy on my
Laptop.

Basically, ALL distributions will install on older machines, although
some of the newer ones are now using '586-ish install kernels, which
could be a problem on '486s (you'd need to either cross-install or
create a custom boot floppy). The main source of issues for older
boxes with 'slow' processors and/or are memory poor are the excessively
overdone 'eye-candy' GUI packages (Gnome and KDE). Note that disk
drives can be cheaply upgraded, *even on really old boxes* -- there was
nothing really stopping me from putting a 20 or 40 gig drive on my
laptop other than the fact that I don't really need such excessively
excessive disk space on it. The only gotcha is the 'old' 1024 cylinder
BIOS limitation, which can *always* be handled by proper partitioning
-- Linux only makes use of the BIOS during the boot up process (eg.
LILO or Grub). Once the kernel is loaded and started, Linux uses its
own drivers.

D>
D> --
D> Confucius: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
D> Registered with The Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org/
D> Slackware 9.1.0 Kernel 2.4.22 i686 (GCC) 3.2.3
D> Uptime: 1 day, 2:12, 2 users, load average: 2.06, 2.32, 2.22
D>
D>

                                     \/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: heller@cs.umass.edu
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller || heller@deepsoft.com
http://www.deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153

                           

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [opensuse] General Poor quality of Opensuse
    ... Linux in general well before that since the days of the Early 0.9 kernels all ... own distro at one time. ... for those that do install it beware it will hog your CPU for excessive amounts ... maybe it is time for Opensuse to find a new home where German licensing rules ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: Linux - for Scotty
    ... But it will let you get a feel for linux, to help you decide if it is ... As to distributions, I've not played with a great variety. ... If you choose to install a distro to a hard drive, performance is, ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)
  • Re: Are there advantages of Linux over XP Pro.?
    ... Excuse my ignorance but what does KDE mean? ... dual-boot 98SE/XP PRO machine for a copy of Linux. ... small file server with RAID and Backup storage with the easy addition of ... The Mandrake 10.1 install was also painless, but the GUI would not run. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Newbie needs help with SUSE 9.1
    ... I think there is a setting in KDE Control Center somewhere that let's ... frustrating because there are some really nice features in Linux. ... I thought I'd install some tools that I ... serving Windows boxes from your Linux box. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Internet Cafe
    ... > They are going to let me install Linux on one of the machines... ... > My main question is which distro would be best for this? ... (The slight downside is that the suse terms allow gifted use, ...
    (alt.os.linux)