Hi Mike and welcome to LQ! You're going to have to provide a bit more detail about your problem if anyone is to have a chance of figuring it out... Where exactly in the install process does it fail? What information does it give you?

This defies logic. According to Wikipedia it says "Required: Processor 300 MHz (x86) Memory 256 MB Recommended: Processor 700 MHz (x86) Memory 384 MB"

Even 128Mb is not the required minimum.

Either increase the amount of RAM you have, or use something else e.g. Xubuntu or Crunchbang Linux.

As a side issue and install from the Desktop disk (LiveCD) uses far more memory than the Alternate disk (straight install).

I would definitely not recommend Ubuntu on these low specs. With just 128 megs of RAM you should look into smaller distro. Not something with gnome or kde.
And when you mean that it fails to install, you do not say much. So there is really not much information on which people can help. where does the install abort?

How is that possible?
that must be a typo or what?
Damn Ubuntu is bad-ass!

I will get back to you, might be mistaken on the other machine specks. Will also post error messages. BTW you say don't use Gnome or KDE, what Graphical Desktops would run on this Laptop please ?

To name just a few... xfce, fluxbox, openbox. Basically search the net for lightweight or minimalist window managers, most are in the ubuntu repositories I think. Run a minimalist install from the alternate CD and install what you need from there.

I would suggest trying out the Puppy Linux Live CD. It only needs about 100Mb of RAM to boot to the live cd and even less RAM is used when you do what they call a 'frugal installation'.

Just choosing a Window Manager/Desktop Environment can have a huge impact on the usage of your system resources. I've used xfce, window maker, enlightenment(buggy), and I'm currently using fluxbox on my laptop. Of that bunch xfce is definately the largest but it is also the most polished.

If the common consensus about a horrid typo is true you might have some luck with Xubuntu. I've also had some success with minimal distro's like Minibuntu or Damn Small Linux and then adding on the desktop environments ( and sometimes many other things that the smaller distro's don't include ).

More info about your installation issue is definitely needed too though! It may be that something small but confusing is causing the failure.

Oops I forgot to add some links:

xubuntu: http://http://www.xubuntu.org/
puppy linux: http://http://www.puppylinux.org/
minibuntu: http://http://www.crealabs.it/ubuntu-mini-remix/
damn small linux: (they mean it... can run on 16Mb of ram) http://http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/


xwinman.org looks like it hasn't changed much recently but it still has a bunch of relevant information on choosing WM's and DE's.
http://http://xwinman.org/

a edit please

actually, it is the full hd install that uses much less ram
the frugal install boots into ram and lives there

basically, a full hd install will use less ram than a frugal-type install

However, certain distro's, even in frugal mode, do not go to ram
like sidux, fedora 11, etc

EDIT AGAIN
I did a full install of sidux to hd
and with xfce it was using 105mb ram

remove xfce and install fluxbox, openbox, flwm, etc
and that ram will go down some
turn off any unnecessary services also

Fastest puppy hd install your gonna find is browserpuppy49
no priniting or other BS
I suggest you use Xvesa option
http://www.browserpuppy.com/

I'd suggest running just plain Debian.

Ubuntu is variant of Debian , and if your comfortable with Ubuntu, then you will feel right at home with Debian.

I've got a Toshiba Portege 7140ct with 128 ram running LXDE and it's working great. I'm usually using only 48mb of ram with LXDE, GDM, and conky running, as well as HAL and Network_manager with VPNC. You can dowload the Debain LXDE install disk here

http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/...+lxde-CD-1.iso

My brother has that older pentium, I emailed him , he said its a pentium II or maybe III with 256meg ram !

A much more feasible installation platform.

Yes sorry about my misinformation I am going to try Puppy for my laptop. Though I was surprised that Im running Win XP and cant run Ubuntu.
I thought that XP was more resource hungry than any Linux OP.

Thanks again guys for pointing me in the right direction and linking me to to various Linux versions.

Mick.

There are a variety of possible operating systems which can be installed on a personal computer. As an alternative to Linux you may wish to consider Microsoft Vista. Although it certainly is more expensive, it is professionally written and you will find that all of the unfortunate issues and problems you are experiencing will simply disappear when using a quality operating system.

cheers