Re: Recommend a very light Linux distribution for very old computer
- From: Mark South <mark.south@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:33:58 +0100
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:24:26 -0800, prg wrote:
Mark South wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:54:05 -0800, prg wrote:
hdneto17@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I am formating this computer for my sister. Now this computer is very
old 500 MHz and 128mb. I am installing windows 98 and I would also like
to install a very light version of linux. Which distribution of Linux,
perferbably one that has a graphical interface, do you suggest.
Which distro you use won't matter that much ;-)
I'm sorry, but that is just balderdash. Different distros make very
different assumptions about turning on services, drivers built-in to
kernel, weight of window manager or desktop environment, etc.
Trying to respond to what the OP suggests is likely to be desired --
ie., a distro for his _sister_ that neither one will likely be prepared
to "master". Besides, I do believe that the "weight of window manager
or desktop environment" was explicitly addressed, and suggested that OP
might want to consider alternatives _and_ distros that offer
alternatives without additional downloads. In the general case, not
the specific case, I agree with you fully.
OK, great.
On the OP's machine, Vector 5.1 or Damn Small or Slackware 10.2 (or
OpenBSD 3.8, for that matter), and possibly Mepis 3.3, will run fast and
smooth. Ubuntu 5.10 or Suse 10 or Knoppix will just stagger along if they
will run at all, as will the Gentoo liveCD.
They may or may not "stagger along" depending on how his sister uses
the box. I know from personal experience that 128 MB is at the edge of
what most users would consider "suitable" performance for distros
running KDE or Gnome. With 256 MB as suggested they are adequate for
most peoples' (read "plain folks's") uses. Others will run "faster"
but I don't think mostest-out-with-the-leastest-in efficiency is what
the OP had in mind.
Indeed, I'm certain the OP didn't want to practice extreme computing :-)
There really is a difference, though. You can boot and run Ubuntu or
Knoppix liveCDs on a 128 Mb machine, but it's not an experience one cares
to repeat. Mepis doesn't fly with that amount of memory, but it will run
pretty well.
DSL or Puppy rip along on old 586's with 64 Mb.
If the OP doesn't want to spend time configuring the distro, they need
something that will run well "out of the box". If I wanted to configure a
distro, I'd start with one that ran well and add stuff, rather than with
one that is almost unusable, but then that's just me :-)
Yes, I know you can customise any one of them to run well with your
hardware, but the starting points are very different.
And because of what I imagined were the likely "starting points" I stand
by the statement that the distro "... won't matter that much." I did
not say they would not matter at all, did I? But hey, I could have
figured wrong so gave the OP some ways he might investigate his options
to find a solution that fits _his_and _sister's_ needs, not our
perceptions of what they need.
Regardless, someone will be along in a second to berate them for not
quoting Eric Raymond....
--
mark south: world citizen, net denizen
echo znexfbhgu2000@xxxxxxxxxxx|tr a-z n-za-m
"Take it? I can't even parse it!" - Kibo, in ARK
.
- References:
- Recommend a very light Linux distribution for very old computer
- From: hdneto17
- Re: Recommend a very light Linux distribution for very old computer
- From: prg
- Re: Recommend a very light Linux distribution for very old computer
- From: Mark South
- Re: Recommend a very light Linux distribution for very old computer
- From: prg
- Recommend a very light Linux distribution for very old computer
- Prev by Date: Re: linux on PC ?
- Next by Date: Re: linux on PC ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Recommend a very light Linux distribution for very old computer
- Next by thread: Re: Recommend a very light Linux distribution for very old computer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|