Linux - DesktopThis forum is for the discussion of all Linux Software used in a desktop context.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I try to install Deepin 20 on an old Dell Dimension 4600 today. And I get a message "unable to boot - please use a kernel appropriate for you CPU". After some thought, I recognize that I tried to install a 64-bit OS on 32-bit hardware. The previous version Deepin 5.11 doesn't seem to have a 32bit version.
Can someone recommend a 32bit Linux distro?
Update:
After some trouble in installation, the title of this question should be "32-bit Linux Distro Recommendation for dual boot"
I love Debian for their i386 netinst option.
If you like something that does a bit more for you (I sometimes tend towards lazy), Sparky Linux Stable 32-bit edition
Some of my other favorites still have 32-bit options, but only in the rescue images. I would use that, but I cannot recommend it. It takes a bit of work to get it shaped into a proper and useful desktop.
I find those articles are not necessarily reliable. A piece of information from the community is the first-hand source. Based on my own research, the Arch Linux 32 (community supported) seems promising.
It will depend a lot on RAM. I see that it was sold with 512 MB and could be expanded up to 2 GB. Some of that memory is used for the graphics, so let's hope yours is expanded. With minimum memory, you'll need AntiX. If you have the full expansion, then MX would be a great choice.
It will depend a lot on RAM. I see that it was sold with 512 MB and could be expanded up to 2 GB. Some of that memory is used for the graphics, so let's hope yours is expanded. With minimum memory, you'll need AntiX. If you have the full expansion, then MX would be a great choice.
Thanks for the info. I assume you mean that Arch Linux can use up a lot of memory. I will check the memory at the Dell desktop.
Thanks for the info. I assume you mean that Arch Linux can use up a lot of memory. I will check the memory at the Dell desktop.
Actually, Arch linux can be EXCEEDINGLY light (cli only install) on ram (only limited in how light by the fact that yes it does use systemd which does use a bit more than most other init processes since it tries to do so much) to super heavy (full gnome3 install). It's highly customizable, which of course is one of it's most appealing traits.
Actually, Arch linux can be EXCEEDINGLY light (cli only install) on ram (only limited in how light by the fact that yes it does use systemd which does use a bit more than most other init processes since it tries to do so much) to super heavy (full gnome3 install). It's highly customizable, which of course is one of it's most appealing traits.
I find those articles are not necessarily reliable. A piece of information from the community is the first-hand source. Based on my own research, the Arch Linux 32 (community supported) seems promising.
That is just wrong.
At first you cannot rely on the members unconditionally, they may fail too
Also you can find low quality posts from unexperienced users and you can hardly check every and each post.
the external link was posted by a user, so that information is based on this community, you can safely accept it.
That is just wrong.
At first you cannot rely on the members unconditionally, they may fail too
Also you can find low quality posts from unexperienced users and you can hardly check every and each post.
the external link was posted by a user, so that information is based on this community, you can safely accept it.
You are absolutely right. I always check a recommended distro on https://distrowatch.com/. I hope I get an object rating. BTW, I tried to install Arch Linux 32-bit without success.The process was slow and sort of painful.
I can only suggest you to go thru the list of recommended distros (use a site like this: https://fossbytes.com/best-lightweight-linux-distros/).
Anyway it may depend on the available resources (like ram and cpu).
Lubuntu, Bodhi or others may work well for you, but obviously you need to choose, you will use it.
I looked at some online installation instructions, but I don't know whether they are for 64-bit version or 32-bit version. The first command fails. I have used Linux Mint (Cinnamon & Mate or XFce) and Deeping. I can't recall my experience was the same as Arch Linux installation. I may try another distro.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
