Prev: [fw] GeForce 9800GTX vs Radeon 4850
Next: Home Shop 18 - Computer Hardware
From: Benjamin Gawert on 28 Jun 2008 05:26
* raylopez99:
> I have not been able to get a straight answer to this, despite almost
> a year of trying.

Maybe then this time you should take the time and at least check what
you really have? "...about 200 MHz clock, with about 500 MB RAM (or
maybe it's 225.." and "...It has a late 90s but
popular video card, forget the brand...." is worth nothing. There is no
PentiumII 200MHz, so either it is a Pentium 200 or a PentiumII with
higher clock speed. If it's a Pentium then you won't have much fun
running Linux on it, too (except maybe for use as a router or file
server). Same about memory (exact size and type), the mainboard and also
the gfx card. You also want to check the gfx card because it won't give
you much fun if it's not supported by Linux.

If you expect people to help you the least thing you can do is to
provide accurate details.

Benjamin
From: ray on 28 Jun 2008 10:35
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:24:31 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

> I have not been able to get a straight answer to this, despite almost a
> year of trying.
>
> Maybe three's the charm?
>
> Here goes again...
>
> I have an old machine, not my main machine, nearly in mothballs that
> somebody uses on occasion to surf the net and print a letter on a recent
> model HP inkjet using OpenOffice as the word processor program. The
> machine is running on Windows 2000. The machine is an Intel Pentium II,
> about 200 MHz clock, with about 500 MB RAM (or maybe it's 225, I
> upgraded it but forgot what it was, but I'm pretty sure it's 512 MB).
> The C: hard drive is only 2 GB large--the only one for the OS. This was
> a popular configuration in the mid to late 90s so I'm sure a lot of
> these machines exist in the world, so somebody must have loaded Linux on
> one of them.
>
> The machine has no DVD, only a CD reader. It has a late 90s but popular
> video card, forget the brand.
>
> What Linux distro to use for this configuration? I can, using another
> PC, download a distro, but then I would have to burn it onto a CD or
> CDs, so I would rather not do that--that is, I would rather get or buy a
> Linux distro that is already burnt, in proper order, onto labeled CDs to
> make installation easier.
>
> In case you're wondering why I want to switch to Linux: though the NT
> system is functional, it's slow, and rumor has it that Linux is 'virus
> free' (or nearly so) and faster. Presumeably since Linux is virus- free
> I would not need antivirus (AV) software. Is this true? Eliminating AV
> software would free up RAM. Again, this system is not for a power user.
> I myself am a power user, would never think of switching to Linux. But
> for this lightweight user, perhaps Linux might work for them.
>
> Any ideas welcome. Be advised that I also needle the posters at
> comp.os.linux.advocacy, but this is not a flame. I really have not been
> able to get a straight answer on this issue.
>
> Some common mistakes made by respondants: they recommend their favorite
> distro without checking the min system requirements; they recommend
> something they've never tried (Puppy Linux, Ubuntu, and Damn Small Linux
> seem to be a favorites--but I need somebody who is very familiar with a
> distro before I install it and find out it won't work on this archaic
> system); and they assume that I have fast internet access on this
> machine. Also, some spiteful types from comp.os.linux.advocacy (avoid
> this group like the plague unless you simply enjoy flaming for its own
> sake) recommend distros that, when I research them, find they won't work
> on this machine specified above, so, please cite your choice with a link
> if possible.
>
> Thanks for your attention.
>
> RL

I would probably try Elive first - I installed it on a P166 with 64mb RAM
last year and it was 'decent'. Other options would include Damn Small and
Vector.
From: Jean-David Beyer on 29 Jun 2008 08:31
Robert Heller wrote (in part):
> At Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:10:46 -0700 (PDT) raylopez99 <raylopez99(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you have a vote on a min hardware distro?
>
> I already answered that: I have used CentOS (4) on some fairly old
> hardware.
>
I run CentOS4 on my "old" machine, a dual 550 MHz Pentium III machine with
512 MBytes RAM that I got in early 2000. So it is a little over 8 years old.
CentOS4 runs perfectly well there.

The oldest machine I had (now gone) had about 166 MHz Pentiun with 64 Megs
RAM. It ran Red Hat Linux 7.3 OK, but it did not run RHL 9 very well because
it was thrashing the disk. I upped the RAM to 128 Megs and that stopped the
thrashing. I raised it to 256 Megs but that did not make much difference.
The main trouble with it was that the 166MHz processor was just too slow.

I am not sure if my "new" machine is still considered new as I built it
myself and started running it in March 2004. It runs RHEL5 just fine still;
I started it with RHEL3. It was almost state of the art then, but surely is
no longer. Dual 3.06 GHz Xeon processors, 8 GBytes RAM, 10,000 rpm Ultra/320
SCSI hard drives, ... . But these days, 4 year old machines are already
considered fairly old by some.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 08:20:01 up 3 days, 17:40, 4 users, load average: 4.10, 4.07, 4.11
From: ray on 29 Jun 2008 10:15
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:15:29 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

> On Jun 28, 7:35 am, ray <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>
>> I would probably try Elive first - I installed it on a P166 with 64mb
>> RAM last year and it was 'decent'. Other options would include Damn
>> Small and Vector.
>
> Thanks for the Elive cite. I just checked their website--and it fits
> the bill. However, they insist on money for the "fits on one CD
> version".
>
> I don't want to pay for something that might not work.

Be creative - there are certainly ways to download it for free - including
bittorrent.

>
> Also, how stable is this? For surfing the web (mainly checking email)
> and printing a letter, how often does Elive (or any other 'minimum
> hardware' distro) crash?

I don't run it regularly, but last time I checked, it was quite robust. In
the past I have had some issues with E17 though E16 was rock solid - E17
has grown a lot since then, though.

>
> RL
>
> PS--notice the bad english: "I have not put a minimum donation"...wow,
> how good a programmer is this guy? I hope he's foreign, that would be
> excuseable and understandable.
>
> RL
>
> Please give me something to continue my work!
>
> Why request a donation ?
>
> Elive is free and made with pleasure for your pleasure, but free does
> not mean "no cost" . I spend all my time developing Elive. It is my
> choice. Your choice is whether or not downloading Elive is worth a
> donation. I have not put a minimum donation, because I realize that many
> of you are students with very limited resources. I thank You for showing
> interest in Elive, and hope to see you in #elive on IRC!
>
> You decide the value Elive has for you. What do you obtain ? You
> maintain the future of Elive and you also receive faster downloads.
>
> No Money: If you can't possible to donate for Download Elive, we propose
> you those solutions:
>
> * The better option is to use our invitation codes system * You can
> try Elive from a development version.

From: Benjamin Gawert on 29 Jun 2008 11:54
* Andrew Halliwell:

> I think he makes the specs up as he goes along, sometimes.
> (to be fair to linux though, I doubt there's a video card THAT old that'll
> cause problems)

What about the Nvidia Riva128(ZX) or the bigger cards from 3DLabs
(Wildcat series)?

Benjamin
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: [fw] GeForce 9800GTX vs Radeon 4850
Next: Home Shop 18 - Computer Hardware