Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match - Hardware

This is a discussion on Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match - Hardware ; Say I wanted to load a Linus OS on a Pentium (not II or III) IBM Laptop (non-booting Hard Drive) and/or an HP with oh I think its a PIII running under 900Mhz, then wouldn't I want to seek out ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match

  1. Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match


    Say I wanted to load a Linus OS on a Pentium (not II or III) IBM
    Laptop (non-booting Hard Drive) and/or an HP with oh I think its a
    PIII running under 900Mhz, then wouldn't I want to seek out the
    smaller distributions; those with less bells and whistles perhaps but
    still able to recognize video chipsets and bioses, right?

    As I write this I'm wondering if any one has ever produced an overlap
    table of best fits between eras of processors vs a given family
    version of Linux flavors?


    TBerk




  2. Re: Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match

    On May 4, 8:20 pm, TBerk wrote:
    > Say I wanted to load a Linus OS on a Pentium (not II or III) IBM
    > Laptop (non-booting Hard Drive) and/or an HP with oh I think its a
    > PIII running under 900Mhz, then wouldn't I want to seek out the
    > smaller distributions; those with less bells and whistles perhaps but
    > still able to recognize video chipsets and bioses, right?


    There is little point to most of the tiny / light distros. Just chose
    a mainstream distro (openSUSE, Fedora, Debian) and do a minimal
    install.

    I run openSUSE on 900MHz vintage machines without any issues.

    > As I write this I'm wondering if any one has ever produced an overlap
    > table of best fits between eras of processors vs a given family
    > version of Linux flavors?



  3. Re: Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match

    whitemice wrote:
    > There is little point to most of the tiny / light distros. Just chose
    > a mainstream distro (openSUSE, Fedora, Debian) and do a minimal
    > install.
    >
    > I run openSUSE on 900MHz vintage machines without any issues.


    I run Debian on Pentium 120 desktop machines and vintage laptops, again
    there are no problems. (I think my laptop is a Pentium II 750MHz
    Toshiba, with ATI Rage graphics chipset.)

    I would choose a laptop with an ATI Radeon or ATI Rage based video
    chipset (compatible with open source drivers), to display 3d graphics.

    Regards,

    Mark.

    --
    Mark Hobley,
    393 Quinton Road West,
    Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
    B32 1QE.

  4. Re: Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match

    On Sun, 04 May 2008 17:20:12 -0700, TBerk wrote:

    > Say I wanted to load a Linus OS on a Pentium (not II or III) IBM Laptop
    > (non-booting Hard Drive) and/or an HP with oh I think its a PIII running
    > under 900Mhz, then wouldn't I want to seek out the smaller
    > distributions; those with less bells and whistles perhaps but still able
    > to recognize video chipsets and bioses, right?
    >
    > As I write this I'm wondering if any one has ever produced an overlap
    > table of best fits between eras of processors vs a given family version
    > of Linux flavors?
    >
    >
    > TBerk


    How much memory do you have? Memory size is much more important than
    processor speed. I have Fedora 8 on an old 500MHz 384M laptop and its
    usable as long as you only run one application at a time, if you try and
    do more than that you get paging. 512M would be much more comfortable, a
    500MHz 512M machine would work fine. BTW Fedora has been getting faster
    with each release so I'd recommend F8 or F9. Also I was trying out the
    latest Ubuntu, 8.0.4, on my test machine yesterday. Ubuntu felt
    noticeable slower than Fedora 8 or 9. I'm not sure why that is because
    it's using the same version of Gnome as F9. My test machine has a lot of
    memory (3G) and a reasonably fast processor (single core 2.4GHz A64), the
    only thing that's weak is the graphics processor which is an onboard
    Nvidia G6150 but I disabled the 3D effects which are on by default in
    Ubuntu but that didn't help. But bottom line Fedora for whatever reason
    is definitely faster than Ubuntu so I'd go with Fedora 8 if I were you
    (Fedora 9 is still a beta).

  5. Re: Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match



    OK, so later versions (with better support & drivers, natch) and
    minimal install is a better fit than matching Old Versions & Old
    Hardware.


    Got it, Thx.

    TBerk


  6. Re: Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match

    On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:23:04 -0700, TBerk wrote:

    > OK, so later versions (with better support & drivers, natch) and minimal
    > install is a better fit than matching Old Versions & Old Hardware.
    >
    >
    > Got it, Thx.
    >
    > TBerk


    Old distros are a last last resort. If you have a reasonable amount of
    memory, i.e. 384M or better, then you can run Fedora 8 or 9 with Gnome
    and it will work fine. If you have less than that you want to consider
    other alternatives. There are light weight window managers that require
    less memory than Gnome or KDE. You will need a distro that has good
    support for them, Fedora isn't it. Although Fedora has a lot of light
    weight Window managers, WindowMaker, blackbox, fluxbox, icewm, fvvm, they
    don't work very well. When I was setting up my 384M 500MHz laptop I tried
    all of them. What I found was that they were pretty close to useless out
    of the box. They aren't maintained by anyone so they tend to be set up
    either for some system other than Fedora or for some historical version
    of Redhat, i.e. there are applications listed that haven't been used for
    years while the modern equivalents of those apps aren't listed. I also
    found that the performance wasn't significantly better than Gnome. On
    that box I found that using Gnome and turning off all of the unnecessary
    services and daemons yielded a pretty decent result. The Ubuntu people
    have a version called Xbuntu that uses a light weight window manager, I
    think its fvvm. I haven't tried it but I suspect that it would be much
    better than Fedora with FVVM because they are treating Xbuntu as a real
    distro.

    For really pathetic machines there are distros like Damn Small Linux that
    are tuned for them. You won't get the modern Linux experience with DSL or
    it's ilk but you will get a workable system.


  7. Re: Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match

    General Schvantzkopf wrote:

    > On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:23:04 -0700, TBerk wrote:
    >
    >> OK, so later versions (with better support & drivers, natch) and minimal
    >> install is a better fit than matching Old Versions & Old Hardware.
    >>

    > [...] The Ubuntu people have a version called Xbuntu that uses a light
    > weight window manager, I think its fvvm.


    No, it's XFCE 4.0. Less features than KDE or Gnome, but lightweight and
    fairly fast. Better looking than /fvwm/ too, although not my personal
    favorite. ;-)

    > I haven't tried it but I suspect that it would be much better than Fedora
    > with FVVM because they are treating Xbuntu as a real distro.


    Indeed, XFCE is much better integrated with Xubuntu than in distros that put
    the emphasis on KDE or Gnome. Mandriva may be an exception because they
    always sought to offer the best integration no matter what desktop
    environment you use.

    My beef with RedHat/CentOS/Fedora is that they try to be nannies during
    installation. If you attempt to install them on a system that has
    either /reiserfs/ or /xfs/ partitions on them, it will recognize the
    partitions but it will disallow you to mount them anywhere in the regular
    directory tree.

    If you don't have either of those filesystems on your hard disk, you won't
    even be able to create /reiserfs,/ /xfs/ or /jfs/ for that matter. The
    only option is /ext3,/ possibly also still /ext2./

    > For really pathetic machines there are distros like Damn Small Linux that
    > are tuned for them. You won't get the modern Linux experience with DSL or
    > it's ilk but you will get a workable system.


    VectorLinux is also rumored to be quite fast and lightweight. It's based
    upon Slackware. And if the OP is brave enough and/or experienced enough,
    he could try Gentoo.

    It allows one to tailor the software to one's specific needs, e.g. if you
    want to (re)compile a package without KDE support, then you can do so and
    make the software slimmer. It's all controlled by the USE flags.

    Your mileage may vary... ;-)

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  8. Re: Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match

    On Sun, 04 May 2008 17:20:12 -0700, TBerk wrote:

    > Say I wanted to load a Linus OS on a Pentium (not II or III) IBM Laptop
    > (non-booting Hard Drive) and/or an HP with oh I think its a PIII running
    > under 900Mhz, then wouldn't I want to seek out the smaller
    > distributions; those with less bells and whistles perhaps but still able
    > to recognize video chipsets and bioses, right?
    >
    > As I write this I'm wondering if any one has ever produced an overlap
    > table of best fits between eras of processors vs a given family version
    > of Linux flavors?


    The real resource hog in Linux as with any OS is the GUI. Linux, new or
    old, without a GUI will fly on just about system, new or old. So, if you
    want or need a GUI, look for a very lightweight one. Really all you need
    is a window manager like IceWM or FVWM to run X apps. KDE, GNOME and
    XFCE are window ENVIRONMENTS with lots of resource eating bells and
    whistles. But....

    As an example: I custom installed app by app, utility by utility, etc.
    Debian 4.0 Etch and XFCE on a 7 or 8 year old IBM Thinkpad 240X with a
    500Mhz CPU and 192MB RAM. Even on battery, when the CPU speed is reduced
    to 166MHz to lengthen battery life, it runs just fine even with several
    apps open. However, if you're looking for a distro that is designed
    specifically for running on older systems, I suggest:

    Vector (http://www.vectorlinux.com),
    Puppy (http://puppylinux.com),
    Damn Small Linux (http:www.damnsmalllinux.org),
    TinyME (http://www.mypclinuxos.com/doku.php/tinyme:home).


    Stef

  9. Re: Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match

    On May 5, 7:35*pm, Stefan Patric wrote:

    > *However, if you're looking for a distro that is designed
    > specifically for running on older systems, I suggest:
    >
    > * Vector (http://www.vectorlinux.com),
    > * Puppy (http://puppylinux.com),
    > * Damn Small Linux (http:www.damnsmalllinux.org),
    > * TinyME (http://www.mypclinuxos.com/doku.php/tinyme:home).
    >
    > Stef


    OK, Thx every Part II.

    I started a download of kubuntu this afternoon and after I came home,
    I found 714 thousand thousand bytes of Linux-y goodness on the hard
    drive.

    I'll be burning it to a CD, creating a boot floppy, all that kind of
    fun stuff.

    When/If I get anything actually done I'll report back.


    TBerk


  10. Re: Older Hardware, Older (smaller?) Distros to match

    TBerk wrote:

    > I started a download of kubuntu this afternoon and after I came home,
    > I found 714 thousand thousand bytes of Linux-y goodness on the hard
    > drive.
    >
    > I'll be burning it to a CD, creating a boot floppy, all that kind of
    > fun stuff.


    Be sure to check the /md5sums/ or /sha1sums/ of the /.iso/ file against the
    copy on the mirror site before you burn it to a CD/DVD, and make sure that
    you use quality CD/DVD media, and that you burn at a low speed.

    If the checksums don't match, then something has gone wrong during the
    download process, and then you may find yourself confronting all kinds of
    seemingly inexplicable problems during or after installation because a few
    bits or bytes may have gone missing.

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

+ Reply to Thread