which distro to use??(i am switching to linux)
 

ibm r50e(1.3 ghz, ram-512mb).. which all linux versions can i install and boot and run on this machine?
PS: its my first time

Pretty much anything x86-based will work.

Ubuntu and Fedora are good places to start, but it's rare that you find two people with the same idea of an ideal distro for anything.
Pick one and try it, if you don't get along with it, try another.

Most Linux distributions will work on your machine. Here are some recommendations:

http://www.linuxcompatible.org/IBM_T...0e_c12902.html

------------------
Steve Stites

That is a pretty weak machine by today's standards. As such I recommend a smaller, lighter, faster distro like Puppy or perhaps DSL. Puppy is a very small download at ~96MB. You could try it from live CD and see what you think with very little effort and zero commitment.

http://www.puppylinux.org/

I am running Fedora 8 on my old pc 755~ Processor and about 370RAM... It's a little bit slow at start but its fine.. Am thinking about upgrading it form 8 to 9:-)


Fedora or Ubuntu is the rite spot .. Good Luck!!


Cheers!!

The face of a distribution is the desktop. Try a live-cd. Try one with Gnome, try one with KDE, try one with a lightweight desktop. Try Ubuntu for its many users. Try puppy for its enthusiasm. Try openSUSE 11.0 because it's my favorite. Welcome

Your hardware will support just about any distribution. Selecting a distro that is right for you is about personal preference and your level of experience.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari..._distributions

Distributions can be divided into groups by several criteria. You can divide them by package management, mainly by RPM (Red Hat/ Fedora/ Mandriva/ OpenSUSE) and DEB (Debian/ Ubuntu/ MEPIS). There are other options. RPM is more common by the number of distributions that use it, but DEB is widely considered to be the more durable and easier to use. Also there are more packages in the DEB format, by far.

Another thing to consider is what you want to use it for. SUSE and CENTOS (Red Hat derivative) are widely used for enterprise. Ubuntu is the most common desktop distribution.

Support is also important. Ubuntu has the largest community and the most forums. It is regarded as the best support option. It also has the easiest and most flexible installer. You can even install it from Windows using WUBI, without the need to partition.

Something to consider is your willingness to deal with proprietary hardware and codecs. Some distros steer clear of and even make it difficult to use proprietary solutions. Debian and Fedora make it particularly hard to configure proprietary drivers, multimedia codecs and install things that Windows users take for granted. Ubuntu tries to walk the fence on the issue. They are not installed by default but can be enabled simply. Other distros are much easier with regard to this. Linux Mint (Ubuntu derivative), SimplyMEPIS (Debian derivative), Mandriva, and PCLinuxOS are the easiest.

Debian does not even allow you to install Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey or Sunbird. They have problems with Mozilla's licensing. You can get older clones released under different names, but if you want to run the latest versions you should steer clear of Debian, Sidux and a few others.

However, in balance all distros deliver to one degree or another, each having its specialty. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Many people choose Ubuntu because its stated goal is to be for humans. It tries to be everything to everyone and succeeds or fails depending on who you talk to. Its advantages are the most users, the most packages, the most forums, free disks including shipping and the best and most flexible installer. Its disadvantage is that it tries to do too much and this often leaves some users with the feeling that it falls short of expectations. A compromise would be to try Linux Mint which is Ubuntu, but it is based on an older version and it is more newbie friendly.

Many others choose Fedora because they like the fact that it is supported by Red Hat. It has a reputation for being bleeding edge and this leads to problems for newbies. It can be tricky to configure and is considered to be for intermediate users. It has many devotees, but expect them to talk over your head, at least at first.

OpenSUSE is from another big company Novell. It is well supported and has the backing of Microsoft, which is either good or bad depending on how you view such things.

Mandriva is an independent company that has been around for a long time. They have a long history and have spawned many distros based on it, such as PCLOS. It is easy to use and has lots of tools.

There are other choices and most of them are ones that you might want to look after once you get your feet wet.

Easiest to try are Mint, MEPIS, and PCLOS. MEPIS and PCLOS have the advantage of being KDE 3 based which is more like Windows. Gnome based distros are less configurable, but give you less to think about right off.

You can't go wrong. Linux is a feast. It is a free, all you can eat smörgåsbord.

Forgetting tgz, pup, and installation by source? If you want to get to know Linux, you may want to install some programs from source every once in a while so you know how to.


You're in a forum with over 300,000 members. The chances of picking an up-to-date distro that no one in this forum can help you out with are slim, so feel free to explore.

Not allow?? You make Debian sound like Windows Vista. They don't have Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey, or Sunbird on install, that does not mean you can't install them.

I've heard SimplyMEPIS is really good, better than Ubuntu. I haven't tried it tho.

Try Ubuntu. For a beginner you can't go wrong with Ubuntu. See this site for gettinig started with Ubuntu (there are many others, but this one is very good, and is maintained by a staff member of the Ubuntu forums):
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/
Join the Ubuntu forums also.
Ubuntu will run ok on your machine. It will likely be faster than Windows XP on your hardware. It would be good if you could increase the RAM to 1GB though. The performance would be better with 1GB RAM, but 512MB will run ok.

I would suggest trying as many distros as can for a few days each, then choosing the one that suits you best. I've run several distros on a machine with a 1.8 GHz processor and 512 MB RAM, so that should be OK.

WTF?
Iceweasel=Firefox
Icedove=Thunderbird

Iceweasel is the same version as Mozilla's Firefox. Get your facts straight. As for multimedia add one repo and apt-get install, 2 minutes later you have any codec/apps you need.


As for the OP, go to distrowatch and try a few of the top 20 distros, most have livecds you can run without installing.





Generated: Thu Dec 04 2008 06:31:14 GMT-0500 (EST)
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.4) Gecko/2008112309 Firefox/3.0.4 (Debian-3.0.4-1)
Build ID: 2008112309


Installed Plugins: (13)
- Adobe Reader 8.0
- DivX Browser Plug-In
- DjVuLibre-3.5.21
- Helix DNA Plugin: RealPlayer 11 G2 Plug-In Compatible
- Java(TM) Plug-in 1.6.0_10-b33
- mplayerplug-in 3.55
- OpenOffice.org Plug-in
- Picasa
- QuickTime Plug-in 7.4.5
- RealPlayer 9
- Shockwave Flash
- Shockwave for Director
- Windows Media Player Plug-in

Mint and Ubuntu are SLOW and therefore not a good choice for older hardware IMHO. Yeah Ubuntu is easy to install and has great support but it is a bit slow. Mint is even slower. These distros tested my patience on a 2.1GHz dual core system so I can only imagine how slow they are on a 1.3GHz single core.

As far as Package Managers go:

Puppy uses the PETget package manager (PupGet is the old way) which makes installing updates and downloading new programs super easy.

Sabayon uses Spritz/Entropy which works in a similar super easy way.

I totally agree that trying a few Live CDs is a good idea. Unleash go ahead and try Mint, Ubuntu, Sabayon and Puppy and then come back and tell us what you think. Perhaps things have changed since I last experimented or perhaps some disros had compatibility issues with my hardware and your results will be different.

i run Xubuntu on aP3 at 800MHz with 256MB RAM and aside from startup its pretty fast. of course xface isn't like KDE or gnome, but it fits most needs

Xubuntu sounds like a great idea if the OP was inclined to go for a Ubuntu variant. Normally I suggest Kubuntu over Ubuntu (because I prefer KDE) but in this case (slow single core CPU) Xubuntu sounds great.

Mephis Anti-X (not the larger regular version) would be another distro worth checking out.

Of course there is always Puppy......

Did I already mention Puppy?

1.3 ghz, ram-512mb is not slow or low-end.

Any distro will run just fine on that.

I have a VIA 1.4 cpu, although my system does have 2gb of ram; 512 is more than enough to run kde/gnome/xfce or any other desktop.

unleash is the word

It seems obvious that the real reason for the multiplicity of linux live-cd versions is to add evidence to the ongoing partisan arguments as to which is best, making linux both a participatory and a spectator sport.

+1 to the Xubuntu answers.

My first Linux distro was Xandros 3.0.2 and it was very similar to m$ which made the transition easy for me, but there are many very easy to use distros out there for a beginner. After the first 6 months of trying as many distros as I could download I settled on Pclinuxos and have been very happy with it. If you are on an older system I would suggest Pclinuxos Minime it is very small and fast and is just the basic operating system however it comes with synaptic so that you can install what you want and nothing more. It is a great way to customize a linux distro and still remain beginner friendly.

You could try Zenwalk.
http://zenwalk.org/
Zenwalk runs very light and fast and would be ideal for the OP's hardware. The only reason I didn't mention it before is because it is not quite as easy for a beginner as Ubuntu; but it is fairly easy to use if you are willing to do some reading. Zenwalk is a great choice for a home desktop also. Read the Zenwalk manual first, so you know what to expect:
http://manual.zenwalk.org/en/
Zenwalk has live CD that you could try before you install also. So if you want something very easy for a beginner, choose Ubuntu (or Xubuntu). If you want faster performance, and are willing to do a bit more reading, choose Zenwalk.

For a machine of that spec, I'd go for Puppy Linux or one of their sub distro's like "MacPup" which is really nice and really fast with not much setup to get bogged down in.

I think the Ubuntu, Fedoras and OpenSuse's of the world are just a bit too feature rich to run nice and fast on a machine of that spec these days.

Thats my opinion of course.

Regards,
Greenie

Get Ubuntu for a start. It's a live as well as an installation CD, so if it runs OK and you like it, then you can install it. And, if and when you get fed up with it, then you can try something else.

I'm gonna have to agree with this...

Everyone suggesting Puppy, if thats what you like, fine. However, this PC is more than powerful enough to run almost any distribution and it will be light years faster than anything out of Redmond. I've got an old, clunker laptop, that is 1ghz, 768mb Ram, 20gig hard drive, Intel graphics that runs Ubuntu Gnome just fine. It will run Compiz effects, but that starts to push the power of the PC, not that it matters to me because I don't use desktop effects even on my fast PC's/Laptops.

Xubuntu, and XFCE in general, isn't that much *lighter* than Gnome/KDE now days. If you can run Xfce, you can probably run Gnome without any problem. I've always found KDE slow compared to Gnome, so any observation I give of it, will be biased.

I'd recommend starting with some of the newbie friendly distros mentioned here and in other threads of this type... Remember when you're trying out Live CDs, they are gonna run slower from the CD/DVD, than they would from the Hard Drive.

Any of the Ubuntu variants, including Linux Mint
PCLinuxOS

Hope that Helps..

IGF

Just Try UBUNTU...pretty nice OS..

I did not forget. I was intentionally sticking to the mainline distros and simple package management. Installation for source is not for newbies. Click on a Deb and it installs after you add your password. This is similar to clicking on an exe in Windows, except you have to provide a password. I have installed Gentoo and compiled programs from source code. It is something that requires skill, time and patience. I provided the link so that he could see how complex the Linux picture can be. Other package managers are mentioned in the link.

As for my comment on Firefox, it is cross platform. You can run it on Windows. If you come to a distribution and expect to find it (most do), but instead find Iceweasel this can be confusing. Asking a simple question should not lead to name calling and the like that I have seen in forums and experienced. When you find that all Mozilla products are verboten then you are tempted to wonder what is with that. It is an honest reaction.

I have also found that Debian users have a thin skin on this. Merely asking why you can't install Firefox, is likely to get you some abuse. As we see here with the even mentioning showed that it is a sensitive topic. Craigevil's response is mild compared to many that I have seen.

If you search for it and don't find it you are bound to wonder where it is and why it is not available. If you are told that Iceweasel is Firefox then you may persist that you want the real thing. It is natural. Since you don't know the history, then you are inviting disaster upon yourself by bringing it up. Hence I mentioned it.

Installing Firefox or Thunderbird from the Mozilla site is an option, but it is just one extra step and not an easy one for many newbies. Also getting updates is a hassle.

Afer discussing this issue with a number of Debian users, I am still unsure what to believe. I have heard both that the programmes are identical and that Debian changes them and Mozilla would not let them do this. They can't be identical and changed. Someone is wrong. I have also heard that it is over the use of logos that are copyrighted which makes more sense to me. In any event, this situation is a mess and any newbie may be stepping into it unwittingly. It would be nice if Debian users could explain it without resorting to abuse.

I did not mean to imply that the OP's machine would not run full sized distros, of course it will.

Keep in mind that I've used several distros on a variety of hardware....and I've got spoiled with Puppy. Most all other distros seem slooooooow in comparison.


Of course if you are accustom to a slow machine you will not notice so much. Going from Puppy to Ubuntu is like going from cable internet back to dial up. Dial up works fine and is plenty fast (or so I thought back in the day). After using high speed for a while dial up seems like torture.

Ubuntu is torture.

Posted 12-04-08:Really? In December of 2008 when quad cores are fairly common and dual cores are pretty much standard even on fairly cheap machines, you claim a single core 1.3 isn't slow? Seriously?

I've got a 1.3 GHz machine. It is the oldest and slowest surviving computer at my home. It originally ran Windows-ME which means it is going on 7-8 years old (XP came out October of 2001).

Don't take my word for it, look here:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

See the 1.3 GHz on the high end chart anywhere?

How about the mid range chart?

Upper half of the low end chart?