Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is? - Linux

This is a discussion on Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is? - Linux ; raylopez99 wrote: > [H]omer suggested Mandriva Linux 2008. It's a good suggestion, although I'd recommend not using KDE or GNOME -- see below. > I don't have time for a lot of experimental "building" of kernels The last time I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is?

  1. Re: Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is?

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > [H]omer suggested Mandriva Linux 2008.


    It's a good suggestion, although I'd recommend not using KDE or GNOME -- see
    below.

    > I don't have time for a lot of experimental "building" of kernels


    The last time I built a kernel was five years ago. Stock kernels from the
    various distributions I checked out and/or used have always worked just
    fine in past years.

    > --if I want to play programmer I'll do my C# stuff, which is a hobby of
    > mine.


    Compiling stuff is not something I'd do on a 100MHz CPU anyway, unless it's
    small projects.

    > Rather, I want a Linux distro for light word processing, maybe
    > home networking at some future point, standalone (no Internet access for
    > now), preferably that fits on one CD-ROM that I can burn from my real
    > system, and supports the following hardware:
    >
    > Pentium 2, without booting it up and from memory I think it's 100 MHz


    This is a reason to forego heavier window managers such as KDE and GNOME,
    and applications such as OpenOffice. As others suggested, use Abiword and
    Gnumeric instead. Yes, you can install a full-fledged KDE or GNOME
    environment with all apps mentioned, but things will be slow, especially
    when starting stuff. Once running, e.g. OpenOffice will be workable, but
    it'll take 25+ seconds to start. Then again, if you're both a more laid
    back and lazy (but intelligent) type of person, simply take the loading
    time for granted, and just don't close an opened app such as OO.o. Use
    virtual desktops instead -- you have enough memory for quite a bit of
    cached data.

    > RAM = 512 MB I think, maybe a little less.


    Perfectly fine. It's a bit of shame about the CPU really; with a 500MHz or
    higher beastie, you could run anything you like, and from a 1GHz CPU,
    things would be really fast & snappy.

    > No printer
    >
    > CD-ROM
    >
    > Floppy 3.5"
    >
    > keyboard, monitor (that I share with a cool AB switch with my real
    > system--that's a true virtual OS for you--just toggle the button and
    > you've got the other system)


    No problems here.

    > I'd like (for fun) KDE/Gnome or whatever GUI there is.


    As I said, it can be done, but it'll be slow.

    > Also suggestions for word processor, spreadsheet (OpenOffice I take
    > it), and compiler for both visual and traditional C++ (compiler
    > optional, since I doubt anything can surpass MSFT's Visual Studio, but
    > for fun I'd like to write a Linux based program, maybe even a virus?!
    > LOL, I'll be famous as the first virus writer, since according to
    > Linux lore there are no viruses in Linux land).


    There are plenty of Linux viruses, still spreading like wildfire, with names
    such as "Linux_is_Hard_to_Install", "Nothing_Works_Under_Linux",
    "Linux_Users_are_Thieves" (courtesy of mr. Ballmer) and so on. The funny
    thing about this, however, is that even these Linux viruses only affect
    Windows users. The only effect they have on Linux is to give it a bad
    reputation.
    As far as automatically spreading malicious programs are concerned: at this
    point in time, there are no such programs for Linux. Apparently, lots of
    people are working on it, but so far, this is one of the few areas of the
    Windows ecosystem which programmers have failed to duplicate in any manner.

    > "Many thanks in advance" (not, since I don't trust this group of
    > misfits and renegades--if you were normal you'd all be using Windows
    > or Apple like normal people do).


    "Normal" people don't really know about operating systems, and have been
    brainwashed into believing that "computer" and "Windows" are somehow one
    and the same thing. They just buy what's offered to them, and right now,
    that limits their choice to Windows, and (if they feel like buying
    something "different") Apple. The ones who get offered Linux (by me, or by
    other users of mine), often choose Linux, however. Most of my 100+ users
    are perfectly normal people, from all layers of society. It's just that for
    all kinds of reasons, they decided to give Linux a try -- and well over 90%
    of those people never looked back.

    But just for fun & kicks (and somewhat prompted by this question of yours),
    I installed Mandriva 2008 -- the 3 CD set -- on both an Acer TravelMate
    5151TE (233Mhz CPU, 256MB of RAM) and an ancient Toshiba Satellite 2550CDT
    (366MHz CPU, 128MB of RAM, see
    http://www.nat.vu.nl/~bacchett/linux/product.htm) laptop computer. Both
    have a 4GB HD, and in both cases, I selected the full KDE desktop, just to
    see what'd happen. This is what I encountered:

    - The CPU & mainboard are old (= rudimentary ACPI or even pre-ACPI), which
    means I had to select the kernel option acpi=off during installation (a
    matter of pressing F3 and then F6), otherwise the installation will hang
    right away. This is something you have to know (Google is your friend),
    otherwise you won't get anywhere.

    - There's a bit of CD juggling involved. A few minutes after installing from
    CD1, it asked for CD2, then for CD1 again. And after some 50 minutes, the
    same thing happened with CD2/CD3. CD1 took 40 minutes to load; CD2 another
    15 minutes, and finally CD3 took 15 more minutes -- so the overall install
    time was roughly one-and-a-quarter hour, which is quite normal with these
    slow machines.

    - Apart from the CD juggling, the installation itself was smooth and
    completely uneventful. After some five more minutes of configuring
    (passwords, user account, installing the boot loader and some more stuff),
    both machines rebooted without a hitch. Boot time from power-on to fully
    functional desktop: some 3.5 minutes -- with one minute more at very first
    boot. Everything on-board worked first go.

    - After the installation, I had to get networking functioning, which meant
    installing ndiswrapper for loading the Windows drivers for the respective
    PC Card NIC's. This was a bit of a hassle -- one had a Broadcom chipset
    which initially wouldn't play nic(e) even with ndiswrapper, and the other
    one was a Ralink thingie which required extra firmware files. In the end, I
    got both working, but it took me half an hour each -- yes, WiFi is still a
    pain for Linux users, there are not that many drivers out there. One other
    major handicap here was that both laptops lacked an Ethernet connection, so
    any external files I wanted to feed 'em had to be burned to CD(-RW) first.
    (In comparison: I installed Linux on a rather more modern Fujitsu Siemens
    Amilo notebook a week ago, equipped with an Atheros wireless chipset, and
    while the Mandriva 2008 Free DVD didn't offer any drivers for it, it was a
    simple matter of hooking the machine up to the Ethernet port, and getting
    anything needed through Easy Urpmi (http://easyurpmi.zarb.org). I had
    wireless up and running on this machine within five minutes of booting it.)

    But back to my two old laptop computers. How do they work? Well, the mere
    128MB of RAM in the Toshiba sure makes it slow, and the free command shows
    there's only about 3MB of free memory after KDE was fully started, with
    only 51MB of cached data. It's really short on memory. Yet it works OK.
    The Acer (with 256MB) still showed some 24MB free, with 133MB cached RAM
    contents.
    I tried torturing the machines by starting OpenOffice, and on the Toshiba,
    it took over a minute to start, with swap really kicking in, topping out at
    almost 70MB of swap usage.
    The Acer did better, with a 35 second start time and no swap space usage to
    mention -- but that one had double the RAM, of course.

    For all the rest, both machines are workable, although the Toshiba
    definitely loses out on snappyness, due to a lack of RAM.

    So in all, if you're willing to give it a try, I'd say give Mandriva 2008 a
    spin. OK, it'll take over an hour to install on old machines, but then
    again: what can you lose?

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

  2. Re: Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is?

    rodolfo.garcia44@gmail.com wrote:

    > On Oct 27, 6:08 am, raylopez99 wrote:
    >> [H]omer suggested Mandriva Linux 2008. I don't have time for a lot of
    >> experimental "building" of kernels--if I want to play programmer I'll

    >
    > If Homer suggested a bloated distribution like Mandriva for an older
    > machine it just goes to show that he knows little about Linux.


    Mandriva isn't necessarily bloated. During installation, it offers a default
    ("bloated") choice of KDE, but also another "custom" choice, with more
    light weight window managers such as IceWM.

    > Try DSL or Puppy Linux.


    These are fine as well, and -- indeed -- tailored to the somewhat less
    luxuriant types of hardware.

    > As for the comments about 7, I always assumed he is brain damaged?


    He's, how shall I put it, erm, "different". He knows a good OS from a bad
    one, but he has some trouble wrapping his thoughts in words.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

  3. Re: Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is?

    On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:22:05 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:


    >raylopez99 wrote:


    >> [H]omer suggested Mandriva Linux 2008.


    >It's a good suggestion, although I'd recommend not using KDE or GNOME -- see
    >below.


    >> I don't have time for a lot of experimental "building" of kernels


    >The last time I built a kernel was five years ago. Stock kernels from the
    >various distributions I checked out and/or used have always worked just
    >fine in past years.


    >> --if I want to play programmer I'll do my C# stuff, which is a hobby of
    >> mine.


    >Compiling stuff is not something I'd do on a 100MHz CPU anyway, unless it's
    >small projects.


    I wouldn't run gentoo that was built on a 1ghz cpu, but 1ghz is just fine for
    building a trimmed down kernel. 800mhz was enough in the P3 days and nothing
    has changed since then. The kernel isn't much bigger as long as you just build
    what you need. You don't have to build modules for every piece of hardware
    that has ever had a driver written for it.

  4. Re: Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is?

    DFS wrote:

    >
    > [raylopez99 is] fine by me - he tells it like it is.


    Raylopez99, the genius excarnate, tells things like:"...but it's the 32
    bit version of Vista that gives problems with RAM over 2 GB--since it
    cannot see RAM over 2 GB."



    --
    Timo Pirinen
    pirisisi@dlc.fi

  5. Re: Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is?

    Timo Pirinen did eloquently scribble:
    > DFS wrote:


    >>
    >> [raylopez99 is] fine by me - he tells it like it is.


    > Raylopez99, the genius excarnate, tells things like:"...but it's the 32
    > bit version of Vista that gives problems with RAM over 2 GB--since it
    > cannot see RAM over 2 GB."


    Now, why would any OS have problems with that amount of ram in this day and
    age, I wonder.... Oh, linux used to have a 2gig compile option... like, 5
    years ago...

    Can anyone think of a reason why any modern OS couldn't see above 2gig on a
    32bit kernel/processor?

    Neither can I. Mr lopez is indeed an utter moron.
    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  6. Re: Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is?

    [H]omer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that SomeBloke spake thusly:
    >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:08:11 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:




    >>> I don't trust this group of misfits

    >
    >> And yet you want us to help you. Pathetic.

    >
    > He's just being defensive, obviously he's feeling insecure about asking
    > for genuine help and advice from the same people that he spends all his
    > time insulting.


    IMO he's NOT genuine, & don't be surprised if/when he throws it back in your
    face, a la flatfish "this doesn't..........that won't work....it's
    crap..etc...etc."


    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA1.5
    Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
    Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy"

  7. Re: Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Richard Rasker belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > But back to my two old laptop computers. How do they work? Well, the mere
    > 128MB of RAM in the Toshiba sure makes it slow, and the free command shows
    > there's only about 3MB of free memory after KDE was fully started, with
    > only 51MB of cached data. It's really short on memory. Yet it works OK.


    Windows XP SP2 on that machine?

    Fergeddabouddit!

    > The Acer (with 256MB) still showed some 24MB free, with 133MB cached RAM
    > contents.


    Windows XP SP2 on that machine?

    Thrash city!

    --
    Tux rox!

  8. Re: Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, raylopez99

    wrote
    on Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:08:11 -0700
    <1193479691.306923.120540@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>:
    > [H]omer suggested Mandriva Linux 2008. I don't have time for a lot of
    > experimental "building" of kernels--if I want to play programmer I'll
    > do my C# stuff, which is a hobby of mine. Rather, I want a Linux
    > distro for light word processing, maybe home networking at some future
    > point, standalone (no Internet access for now), preferably that fits
    > on one CD-ROM that I can burn from my real system, and supports the
    > following hardware:
    >
    > Pentium 2, without booting it up and from memory I think it's 100 MHz


    The Pentium 2 was never released in a 100 MHz version.
    The lowest clockrate for a P2 shown on

    http://www.tom.womack.net/x86FAQ/faq_time.html

    is 233 Mhz, released on 07/05/1997. Pentium 1[*] and
    Pentium Pro did have 100 MHz versions.

    As for RAM...I have a 400 MHz Pentium II, which might
    accept 512 MB on a good day (it currently has 320 MB).

    >
    > RAM = 512 MB I think, maybe a little less.


    If you're talking Pentium *1* timeframe, a *lot* less.

    >
    > No printer
    >
    > CD-ROM
    >
    > Floppy 3.5"
    >
    > keyboard, monitor (that I share with a cool AB switch with my real
    > system--that's a true virtual OS for you--just toggle the button and
    > you've got the other system)


    That's one of the dumber definitions of "virtual OS"
    I've seen in awhile. Say what one will about MacOSX,
    they do allow a seamless transition from Windows to MacOSX.

    >
    > I'd like (for fun) KDE/Gnome or whatever GUI there is.


    I'd suggest uwm and xsm for you. :-P Just because we like you.

    [rest snipped]
    [*] the actual name was "Pentium", but clearly when "Pentium 2"
    came out, one has to call it something a little clearer. :-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
    elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  9. Re: Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is?

    On Oct 29, 9:07 am, The Ghost In The Machine
    wrote:

    > The Pentium 2 was never released in a 100 MHz version.
    > The lowest clockrate for a P2 shown on
    >
    > http://www.tom.womack.net/x86FAQ/faq_time.html
    >
    > is 233 Mhz, released on 07/05/1997. Pentium 1[*] and
    > Pentium Pro did have 100 MHz versions.
    >


    I think it's a Pentium Pro then. I think it's bus clock is 133 MHz.
    I know it wasn't a Pentium, so it must be a Pro.

    Well, from Tom's Hardware list maybe it's this one:
    01/06/95 Intel Pentium 133 66 Socket 5/7 P54C

    So perhaps a Pentium 1.

    In any event, I've downloaded the Mandrake(sic) distro and if it sucks
    you'll be sure to know. Right now I'm busy with other stuff,
    including a simulation program in C# of economics that will win me a
    Nobel next year.

    RL


  10. Re: Best Linux distro for this old obsolete hardware system is?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, raylopez99

    wrote
    on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:50:08 -0700
    <1193687408.992484.270880@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.c om>:
    > On Oct 29, 9:07 am, The Ghost In The Machine
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The Pentium 2 was never released in a 100 MHz version.
    >> The lowest clockrate for a P2 shown on
    >>
    >> http://www.tom.womack.net/x86FAQ/faq_time.html
    >>
    >> is 233 Mhz, released on 07/05/1997. Pentium 1[*] and
    >> Pentium Pro did have 100 MHz versions.
    >>

    >
    > I think it's a Pentium Pro then. I think it's bus clock is 133 MHz.
    > I know it wasn't a Pentium, so it must be a Pro.


    Well, next time do your homework, laddie. :-P If nothing else,
    stick a disc in its face and then

    $ cat /proc/cpuinfo

    to see what Linux thinks it is.

    >
    > Well, from Tom's Hardware list maybe it's this one:
    > 01/06/95 Intel Pentium 133 66 Socket 5/7 P54C
    >
    > So perhaps a Pentium 1.
    >
    > In any event, I've downloaded the Mandrake(sic) distro and if it sucks
    > you'll be sure to know.


    No doubt.

    > Right now I'm busy with other stuff,
    > including a simulation program in C# of economics that will win me a
    > Nobel next year.
    >
    > RL
    >


    I have my doubts on that; Nobels (with one exception)
    apparently have a lag of 10-15 years, as far as I can
    tell. So if you develop an excellent C# application
    that perfectly simulates the economics of this year and
    subsequent years, expect a call maybe in the 2017-2022
    time frame, as far as I can tell. :-)

    (The Nobel Peace Price has a lag time of at most 1 year,
    but that's a slightly different prize.)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux makes one use one's mind.
    Windows just messes with one's head.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2