[SOLVED] What Distribution for a 2006 HP Pavilion Desktop
Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
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.
Something 32-bit (less memory usage), any current distro that runs xfce or Gnome 2 (the latter isnt supported anymore so you wont get bugfixes for it so choose wisely). Avoid Gnome 3 or kde 4, those DEs are a bit much for that amount of RAM.
Debian is very good for example (my favourite). Xubuntu and Mint are good also.
The thing with Debian and its descendents is that those have the biggest official repositories (Debian has the largest) and pretty much everything that has Linux version has packages for them even they are not in the repos.
Something 32-bit (less memory usage), any current distro that runs xfce or Gnome 2 (the latter isnt supported anymore so you wont get bugfixes for it so choose wisely). Avoid Gnome 3 or kde 4, those DEs are a bit much for that amount of RAM.
Debian is very good for example (my favourite). Xubuntu and Mint are good also.
The thing with Debian and its descendents is that those have the biggest official repositories (Debian has the largest) and pretty much everything that has Linux version has packages for them even they are not in the repos.
Thanks for the wise councel on avoiding Gnome 3 or KDE-
I ran Debian for about a year so I understand why it's your fav. I liked Debian for it's stability!
If my friend doesn't like Centos I'll suggest Mint like you have suggested-
IMO, the memory for that machine can be picked up pretty cheap on something like ebay ($8 for a 1 GB), so get your friend to buy 2 1 GB DIMMS in order to jump it up to 2 GB, and run a 64-bit version of Debian with a lightweight DE (LXDE or XFCE) or a WM. Huge repositories, and the 64-bit is definitely faster on the same hardware as the 32-bit version if it's not starved for memory. With the lighter weight DE, that desktop should still run perfectly well.
I suggest you stay at 32-bit releases. If you dont have more than 4 GB RAM (even here you can use the now-standard PAE i386 kernels) there is absolutely no need for 64-bit. Why?
- 64-bit native programs use more memory
- some software still require certain 32-bit libraries (Skype etc) and it can be difficult to get them all installed (you have to define multiarch etc). I know from experience. When i installed Debian 64 bit (i actually need it for IOMMU) first time i was surprised by the amount of additional stuff i had to do (find and install i386 libs alongside their 64-bit versions, some not even documented) compared to i386 where everything worked plain and simple.
- THERE IS NO PERFORMANCE difference if you dont use programs that deal with huge amount of data (larger than 4 GB per process) which is typically a server scenario.
Last edited by gradinaruvasile; 06-23-2013 at 01:14 AM.
- THERE IS NO PERFORMANCE difference if you dont use programs that deal with huge amount of data (larger than 4 GB per process) which is typically a server scenario.
Depends on the OS. While Arch Linux and other "686-"optimized distros, I'd agree, something like Debian (that defaults to still being compatible with much much older hardware optimizations) there is a noticeable performance difference between the 32 and 64 bit distros.
I know for a fact that CentOS 5.6 ( this was some time ago ) ran just fine with 512 meg ram
on the same box with 1 gig ram ScientificLinux 6.4 - 32 bit runs just fine on the 12 year old box ( the Gforce 2 card is unsupported in Xorg however )
but the OP's "NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200XT" is supported
Depends on the OS. While Arch Linux and other "686-"optimized distros, I'd agree, something like Debian (that defaults to still being compatible with much much older hardware optimizations) there is a noticeable performance difference between the 32 and 64 bit distros.
Debian has 686 for long time as default. I used it before and now i have 64 bit. Absolutely no noticeable difference besides higher all around memory usage (and accompanied by more frequent disk activity related to swapping).
I have 4GB RAM (-512mb for video) and run 1-2 VMs etc and i do get to the point where programs are swapped out. It happens more frequently on 64 bit than on 32-bit.
So all in all 64 bit is SLOWER. I need it for a certain virtualization feature (AMD IOMMU) that is available only on 64 bit, but other than that if you have 4 GB (linux uses up to 64 GB just fine even with 32 bit arch unlike Windows' desktop versions) of RAM or less i see absolutely no reason to use 64 bit. 32-bit is lower on memory and easier to set up.
I know that are certain workloads that benefit from 64 bit architecture but those deal with high amounts of data and are used on servers.
On desktops these benchmarks/workloads have absolutely no relevance. CPUs ARE NOT FASTER on 64 bit on typical programs (yes 64=32x2, but that isnt how performance is scaled normally).
Also note that many programs are in fact 32 bit and provide only a wrapper for 64 bit architectures - in fact they use 32 bit libs and work in 32 bit mode.
PS the above is also true for Windows - most programs install in the Poogram Files(x86) folder, meaning that in fact they are 32 bit. Additionally Microsoft made an artificial restriction on Windows desktop versions - removing PAE (which exists on 32 bit server versions) to make people use the 64 bit version which leads to the same issues as discussed above (only Windows tends to bundle everything needed for running 32 bit programs).
I know for a fact that CentOS 5.6 ( this was some time ago ) ran just fine with 512 meg ram
on the same box with 1 gig ram ScientificLinux 6.4 - 32 bit runs just fine on the 12 year old box ( the Gforce 2 card is unsupported in Xorg however )
but the OP's "NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200XT" is supported
but CentOS 6 still has about 4+ YEARS of support
My friend likes CentOS he saw it yesterday!
When I install it for him next week I'll let you know how things went.
I will look for the kmod-nvidia 173 or use the 173.14.37*.run that you already advised me on-
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.