I have no idea how old they are. I have two desktop machines. One is a Fujitsu-Siemens Scenic with a Celeron processor. I can't remember how much memory it has but it's less than 1 GB. I use it as a print server, since my printer needs a parallel port and modern computers don't have those. My main computer is an HP Compaq with an Intel dual core, 2GB of RAM and more disk space than I know what to do with. I consider it lavish!

I now have a laptop too; this one I actually bought second-hand from Computer Exchange. It's a Samsung NC20 with mostly VIA electronics, 1GB of RAM and about 150 GB hard drive. I regard it mainly as a learning tool.

In case it's any help, you can get a PCI parallel port card for a about £10.

There are also USB to parallel convertors which are usually cheaper still.

I'm not putting any cards into my active machine! The last time I opened up a computer(it was to change the battery), I wrecked it. I am incredibly clumsy with my hands. I think I have dyspraxia. The converter sounds like an idea though.

Yes if you don't want to install any adapter cards then the USB to parallel adapters are ideal. I've seen them for less than £5, so not a huge deal if it doesn't work out, for whatever reason, either.

Linux distros look to drop 32-bit support http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastruc...705140004.html


Wow, 32 bit feels quite antique now. Changing with times. Better grab a few older OSes and keep.

Looking at the link there is a further link which suggests that Linux was developed to help people use old PCs. That's blatantly false.

I spy clickbait upon clickbait.
Ubuntu, a distribution not known for being conservative, may drop 32 bit support.

This seems to be the link for the original article, it is quite consistent, the older PC being sold locally are Core2Duos, I heard same from almost everywhere:
http://www.networkworld.com/article/...t-support.html

My issue is with the "fact" that Linux got its start helping people with older PCs. Sure, that may have been part of it but Linux got its start as being free (in both senses) and Unix-Like.

It is not sad actually. It is a fact of life, nothing is forever in life. Things start, reach a peak and then slowly are phased out/die etc., Understanding, accepting and adapting to this cycle is helpful. In IT this cycle happens a bit faster. In reflection we had 8Bit, 16Bit stuff, Ram of 3Mb, 486 etc., They served their purpose and were good for their times. However, when it comes to both professional and personal work, we see how the modern PCs offer a much better advantage.

There are linux and bsd based distributions that are NOT dropping 32-bit support.
There are also other OS options such as KolibriOS, FreeDOS, etc. that will continue to run on both current and historical/minimal hardware. The *buntu crowd are NOT Linux and they do not represent us, and are free to go their own way if they wish (they will anyway: good for them)!

There are many reasons to focus on 64-bit now, since nearly all new commodity hardware is now arriving 64-bit. Servers have been there for some time. Some distributions, however, are focused on supporting older hardware, or current hardware at greater (in some cases FAR greater) speed and using less resource. Virtualization drives some of it, since you can pack more thin 32-bit guests into a host and do more with them. I expect to see some modern desktop and server distros go 64-bit only, but most of the rest will continue to support a full range of processor and platform options.

Because that is what we DO!

Hi...

The problem is that there is a percentage of the population, in the U.S. and around the world, that this might pose a hardship, as many are unable to afford new (or newer systems.) I think a decision like this needs to be held off until 32 bit systems are in the extreme minority.

I had this discussion with an Ubuntu contributor, Bryan Quigley.

Regards...

They are still considering the reduction, so it will be another year or two from now even if they decide to do so. Once, this happens, still few others might offer the support on a smaller scale. So, an approx.view is that for atleast next 5 years or so, there must be 32 bit support. It is not that bad in reflection. By this time, the core2duos might even be available for free via Freecycle etc.,

That's quite possible, good point.

Regards...

I looked at that thread and noticed several posts to the effect that you can't run 64-bit software comfortably in 2GB of RAM. I was flabbergasted. My main computer (I call it Bigboy) has 2GB and I consider it very fast. One of the distros I run on it is Crux, which is source-based, so I get to see a lot of builds and they just wizz along. Only Firefox takes a long time linking the xulrunner library.

My second-hand laptop (Littleboy) has 1GB and is a bit slow, but not uncomfortably so with the right desktop. People seem very easily dissatisfied these days.