FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


my girlfriend and linux.





TheGeek
I had a question about the user friendlyness of linux.

I got an old computer for free the other day from my neighbor and its got just the bare requirements to run linux.

100Mhz proccesor
32mb ram
8GB HDD
2 PCI slots and a cd rom drive that ill probably upgrade to a burner for her if i find a cheap one.

My question was, taking those specs into account. What would be the most user friendly version of Linux that could run on that system. I know that slackware can because thats the one i use, but its a little complicated to do stuff in. So i was wondering if something like linspire or Ubuntu could run on it.
klingoncowboy4
Gulp well I would say slackware time

486 processor
16MB RAM (32MB suggested)
100-500 megabytes of hard disk space for a minimal and around 3.5GB for full install
3.5" floppy drive
http://slackware.com/install/sysreq.php

though it is the most Unix based so instal and admin is more difficult.
rafazamboni
I have a PII 333 Mhz with 128 RAM and 3Gb HD..

and I use the linux Kurumin (version of portuguese of Debian)...

the performance is hight, only in some aplications that they demand more performance of the processor it overloads a little being slow
Helios
Debian is great.. very good for slow computers.
But it's not so user friendly =(

In a user-friendly distro you need the most graphical interfaces you can get.. i mean, everything should be with a graphical interface.. for example Fedora Core or Mandriva..
Well, you also need a nice amount of RAM =\
You'll need to get the min of 128 if you want a user friendly desktop.

Just my 2 cents..
pixelsmack
i would think you will find it very difficult to find a version of linux that will work nicley on a machine of that spec.

However i would advise if she is just going to web browse and word process etc that you set the machine up as simpily as you can just to accomplish those tasks that you require.

I mean lets face it anyone can boot slackware and run open office on it.
ocalhoun
On that machine you'll be running command-line. Not very user-friendly for new users.
Ranfaroth
TheGeek wrote:
So i was wondering if something like linspire or Ubuntu could run on it.
Yes, I think Ubuntu could run, if you use a very light desktop manager (like XFCE for example).
TheGeek
haha, thanks everyone, i sorta got the answers i thought i was gunna get.


I use slackware on my machine so thats sorta the spec basis i was going on. Thanks

Im gunna see about upgrading the RAM, the problem though is that it uses a really old RAM type so idk if i can find a replacement/upgrade anymore.

Im gunna try to intstall slackware 10.1 on it with the GNOME and see what happens. (i think there is a way to boot it straight to X if im not mistaken)

The only real catch is that im setting it up for wifi use and all i need it for really is web-surfing, music, ocasional web movie, word processing, email and other basic stuff...

this is gunna be the ultimate challange for me i think, its like giving my grandmother a linux computer...or a computer in general.
technology.sponge
most linux os's wiv a gui generally require a pc wiv a bit more beef than the 1 u hav

eg

300mhz+
48meg ram+
1gig hdd+
cdrom 8x or faster

u cud try running dsl (Damn Small Linux) on the pc though..its pretty small 50megs and doesnt require much
devroom
i should use damn small linux. u can internet with it and is exstancable (how do u say that in english?) Is only 50 mb in size. So i recomend u download that, its the linux distro with the lowest system requirements
Kyle Katarn
Here is one I used in the past, that has a full-featured WM, but easy on the RAM. As a matter of fact, I used it for a while as a web server on a 233mhz, 128mb system. www.vectorlinux.com
It is easy to install, and quite user friendly. It is a basically a user-friendly version of SlackWare.
Donutey
ocalhoun wrote:
On that machine you'll be running command-line. Not very user-friendly for new users.


windows 3.11, windows 95, windows 98, and various linux distros... would all run well on that machine ( our first pc was a 133mhz pentium... )
TheGeek
Donutey wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
On that machine you'll be running command-line. Not very user-friendly for new users.


windows 3.11, windows 95, windows 98, and various linux distros... would all run well on that machine ( our first pc was a 133mhz pentium... )


somehow i doubt that 98 would work...but i know 95 does, i have a 133 machine behind me running behind me with it.
Daniel15
TheGeek wrote:
Donutey wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
On that machine you'll be running command-line. Not very user-friendly for new users.


windows 3.11, windows 95, windows 98, and various linux distros... would all run well on that machine ( our first pc was a 133mhz pentium... )


somehow i doubt that 98 would work...but i know 95 does, i have a 133 machine behind me running behind me with it.


I ran Windows 98 on a computer like the following:
486 (100 mHz)
16MB RAM
600MB Hard drive
CD-ROM Drive
I remember that it was a 'VENTURIS 4100' from Digital Equipment Corporation.

So yeah, Windows 98 would work. If you want to use Linux, you'll need to use a lightweight package manager. Small distributions such as Vector Linux, Damn Small Linux or Peanut Linux would be best.
bananaphone
Try Damn Small Linux (DSL) - it can run on anything and is easliy installed to a hard drive.
bogden
sad but true; i'd be surprised if any linux distro could compare with the speed of win98se on a system of that specs.
GrimReaper77
If the old clunker will be used for nothing more than internet browsing, then all the small distros will be fine. If you want more, then chose between Fedora and Mandrake for their user friendliness. You'll def need to add more ram.

And distrowatch.com is your link to all things linux Very Happy
mOrpheuS
TheGeek wrote:
somehow i doubt that 98 would work...but i know 95 does, i have a 133 machine behind me running behind me with it.

First hand.
I've run Windows 98 SE for 2 years on a 133 MHz (Pentium NonMMX CPU, 32 MB RAM, 2 GB HDD) and watched movies, played NFS2, Quake2 etc. on it.
I've even run heavy applications like photoshop on it quite satisfactorily (although, back then it was not nearly as heavy as it is nowadays).

So yes, Windows 98 is my recommendation for a PC of such configuration.

bogden wrote:
sad but true; i'd be surprised if any linux distro could compare with the speed of win98se on a system of that specs.

I agree.
Linux (with GUI) is heavier, no matter what some fans say Wink
Even my current P4 machine runs more briskly with Windows than with Linux.
xboy
The only linux distribution I can work with is Gentoo. Also you can install FreeBSD.
Arnie
I use BasicLinux 3 on such computers. That's a Slackware derivative. Not very hard to use, installing requires some commands but you're guided pretty well and otherwise I can help you. Windows 98 will also work on that computer, though not marvelous because of the 32MB RAM. Still I agree that generally old Windows versions perform better on old hardware than the lightweight Linux distros. Especially because those lightweight Linuxes often have very little functions compared to the old Windows versions, or they're very hard to get going.
SNiPeRZ
Didn't realise there was so many versions of Linux.. Shocked
Omego2K@
if you're looking for user friendly, go with mandrake. It's made for n00bs and such.
riv
Omego2K@ wrote:
if you're looking for user friendly, go with mandrake. It's made for n00bs and such.


I don't think Mandrake would work on a computer with 32MB of RAM, especially with KDE (correct me if I'm mistaken) Although it might work if you have a swap partition, but I've never tried. I have a 64MB RAM computer running Debian... R e a l l y s l o w . . .

P.S. Don't even try to install Fedora on a computer with 32MB. Trust me.
Arnie
Don't try to install the latest version of any major distro on such a pc. They're not built for old hardware. You either need a lightweight distro or an old version which can be found on several FTPs.
quartz
You may install leightweight linux but I think that PC will be too slow for normal work.
dont use KDE or GNOME, use IceWM http://www.icewm.org/

Alternatively you can use it as terminal. Take look at www.ltsp.org
I have even 486 boxes turned into terminals and they are working. Little bit slow with KDE, but normal speed with GNOME.
robin
but whatever you do, don't use windows!!! god damn microshit
I would recommend Ubuntu, but with your specs, other people's suggestion of 'damn small linux' sounds good

i would like to experiment, damn small one day, I think I can get a free crap computer to try it out.

go linux, i support the penguin!

but it seems gnome or kde seem to run slower than windows
wonder if they will make it run faster in the future
or is it the problem with X?

does anyone experience that clicking response time is a teeeny weeeny bit slower?

i want to take microshit down so bad
Arnie
If you need to bash Microsoft so badly, at least do it in the right topic. http://frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16230
simplyw00x
Windows will not run better. Not even slightly.

Try Ubuntu with a lightweight WM as previously suggested. Or Debian or Slack, they're all pretty efficient as long as you stay away from GNOME and KDE.

Linux is in fact far better than windows on older pcs, and you won't require an older version.
robin
i lke to spread my hate as many places as possible
grantmaster
or you could always try to find a slightly better machine

matter fact, aren't there some used motherboards around here somewhere
gonzo
OLD + GUI linux = pain

OLD + command line linux = geek joy
Deji
gonzo wrote:
OLD + GUI linux = pain

OLD + command line linux = geek joy


depends on the GUI, you can get GUIs that will run using very low resources.

http://natld.berlios.de/ (cant find any screenshots)

http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions/Mini_Distributions/ (might be good lots of distros)

http://ftp.spsselib.hiedu.cz/pub/linux/monkey/docs/english.htm sounds good (low system requirements),

to be honest you are probably going to have to play around to find something that works.. possibly create your own distro?

http://modest-proposals.com/Hacklin.htm (floppy disk based distro that you might be able to add stuff to)

http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions/Floppy/ (floppy disk distro list)

good luck
Arnie
Few people are willing to spend the time to learn using Linux commands. You can't have everything...
kumaresh
I am a MS Windows user for a long time eventhough I am very very sick of the OS regardless the diffrent versions. But I think Mepis a desktop OS based on Dibian Linux is quite good. One can compare the OS and KD desktop with Windows XP. Mepis has the great stability and quick response on any machine. You can try it from PI to P4 or Celeron or any other. I have tried it on several machines and it worked very well.

But I am forced relay on MS Windows XP SP2 because of the greater hardware support it provides compared to any type of linux. But I heard very lately that certain editions of some latest linux are having better hardware support than the others. Wel, but I am still unable to find one of those.

On the software side, there are several application software for linux. But the installation is a little confusing for me with all those diffrent packages for diffrent linux editions. This is an other obstacle to go over to Linux.

So, I am still forced to use the MS OS without any choice.
robin
grantmaster wrote:
or you could always try to find a slightly better machine

matter fact, aren't there some used motherboards around here somewhere


oooorrr i could use linux
which i am currently doing (using ubuntu 5.10) and loving it
and continue to do so
and continue to say crap about microshit

all for FREE!!

rather than upgrading my comp with 2nd hand motherboard and still running horrible windoze

all costs more money and using a crap OS, it's a lose lose situation.

so i shall continue spreading my free hate for microshit!
robin
hey kumaresh,

yes linux do have hardware support probs cos they all keep making them for windows.

however i think that hardware support for linux is really improving.

ubuntu seems to have good support. once it is installed, the hardware are pretty much automatically detected and installed for you.

although theres always problems with nvidia cards, you will have to manually fix that up yourself. you dont plan to play games on linux right? so it should be fine.

my printer, sound card, 4 speakers & subwoofer, all works automatically.

installing packages are not problematic, just use apt-get install anything and it will install all the depended packages.

i used to use debian and it has good support too, but everything has to be done manually yourself which is a lot of work and may and may not work, depending on your understanding of what you are doing.

it's all good for me with ubuntu. seems to be the most popular distro at the moment.
but that's me, i don't know what your line of work is and what hardware support you need.

god i hate microshit so much
i've been throwing my ubuntu copies at people because i ordered quite a few
i might order more, it's FREE, even shipping.

whatever microshit can do, linux can do (better i think) except games.
right?
Dino
Ubuntu is a great choice for beginners
Related topics
Novell acquires Linux security company
IBM, Red Hat widen Linux mainframe promotion
own linux distro
Nokia does Linux on its new Internet tablet
Linux or Windows on your computer?!
Linux and other IT books
A "small" list of free apps
BIG LINUX
Linux & Windows
Tutorials-How To Install Winxp And Linux To The Same Compute
Linux Problem
Thumb-drive Linux Distro
Linux Needs Progs
Windows is freer than Linux
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Computer Problems and Support

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.