LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-27-2011, 06:16 AM   #16
MTK358
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,443
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721

I see that the OP marked the thread as solved without saying what he did.
 
Click here to see the post LQ members have rated as the most helpful post in this thread.
Old 06-28-2011, 04:34 AM   #17
mdlinuxwolf
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Distribution: Mepis and Fedora, also Mandrake and SuSE PC-BSD Mint Solaris 11 express
Posts: 378

Rep: Reputation: 41
Windows 2000 is old & can run on very modest hardware. My cellphone, a blackberry style, has a CPU powerful enough to run Windows 2000.

Frankly, I think its time to update your hardware if you're running 2000 still. Its 11 years old & your computer is no doubt past its prime.

I'd be surprised if 2000 were slower then Mandrake 10.1, which is its Linux peer. Still, if I were to run 2000, I'd get an old copy of 2000 server, the file server antivirus from MacAfee (if they still make it for 2000) then be happy.

I very much doubt that puppy is slower on the same equipment today.

You'll get much more functionality from a newer desktop or laptop running Linux Mint then out of 2000. It'll be much easier to find drivers for hardware and so on. Since you like simple setups, LXDE would be a good desktop for you. Xfce is weird, but likeable. If you want a full featured desktop, get a KDE spin.

Specifically, codecs, hardware, multimedia and Internet browsers will be more modern and more powerful in Linux Mint then they are in 2000. Case in point: SATA-II drives...
 
Old 06-29-2011, 05:40 PM   #18
Firefox54
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2011
Distribution: Debian, Windows 8
Posts: 73

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I have two motherboards. I the one I was using is older, built for 98/NT. The newer one was built for xp. The old one doesn't get along with grub, so I'll probably put the newer one back together and use crunchbang.

For those wondering, I used the older one for two reasons: It could hold 750mb ram instead of 500. The newer one only has two ram slots while thee older one has three. And, without looking into it, I thought a pentium2(~750mhz) would run faster than a celeron(1000mhz). Currently, I have three sticks of ram(120,63,63).

To agree with you that it is old hardware, the original cd-drive of the 98 comp was built in '95.

I haven't done it yet but those are the plans.
 
Old 06-29-2011, 11:07 PM   #19
mdlinuxwolf
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Distribution: Mepis and Fedora, also Mandrake and SuSE PC-BSD Mint Solaris 11 express
Posts: 378

Rep: Reputation: 41
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox54 View Post
I have two motherboards. I the one I was using is older, built for 98/NT. The newer one was built for xp. The old one doesn't get along with grub, so I'll probably put the newer one back together and use crunchbang.

For those wondering, I used the older one for two reasons: It could hold 750mb ram instead of 500. The newer one only has two ram slots while thee older one has three. And, without looking into it, I thought a pentium2(~750mhz) would run faster than a celeron(1000mhz). Currently, I have three sticks of ram(120,63,63).

To agree with you that it is old hardware, the original cd-drive of the 98 comp was built in '95.

I haven't done it yet but those are the plans.
Well, it might be time to bite the bullet and get new hardware. Even a humble netbook has 1 gig cpu + 1 gig ram. Laptop can be financed and cost under $400.
 
Old 06-30-2011, 04:55 AM   #20
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox54 View Post
I like windows 2000 for its speed on my old hardware. I also like the design of the filesystem and the start menu. The only problem I have with windows 2000 is it doesn't work with newer software. Google Chrome refuses to install on anything less than xp sp2. K-Melon just doesn't run, for some reason. Other applications, I just have to add dlls to the system dir.

Does dual boot on a dell optiplex gx1, pentium 2 with 254 mb ram sound good?
The reason why you wont get Chrome (and other things) installed on Win2000 is because of the changes that wicrosoft made to XP SP2. It broke a lot of the compatibility with win2000. Even things like some media players stopped working....

254MB? 256MB, probably minus a MB or 2 due to onboard sound, networking, etc. If you are using onboard video, that could well be part of the problem- 1MB for video just isnt really enough. If you can bump the shared video RAM to 8-32MB it should make a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox54 View Post
I have two motherboards. I the one I was using is older, built for 98/NT. The newer one was built for xp. The old one doesn't get along with grub, so I'll probably put the newer one back together and use crunchbang.

For those wondering, I used the older one for two reasons: It could hold 750mb ram instead of 500. The newer one only has two ram slots while thee older one has three. And, without looking into it, I thought a pentium2(~750mhz) would run faster than a celeron(1000mhz). Currently, I have three sticks of ram(120,63,63).

To agree with you that it is old hardware, the original cd-drive of the 98 comp was built in '95.

I haven't done it yet but those are the plans.
750MHz Pentium? That would be P3, not P2. The last, and fastest of the P2 branded CPUs is the P2-450. P3 started at 450, and went up to 1400MHz.

A 750MHz P3 would be slower almost everywhere compared to a celeron 1000MHz. There might be a few places that the 750 would _just_ get ahead, if it was a 'coppermine 128' celeron, due to increased cache (256K for P3 'E' CPUs, 128K for 'coppermine 128' celeron). If its a 'tulatin 256' celeron 1000MHz, its got 256K cache, and is going to be faster than the P3 everywhere.

Intel 810/815 chipsets (used by some celeron, P2 and P3 CPUs)are limited to 512MB of RAM (exception- some 815EP motherboards are meant to support 768MB, never tested that myself). If you have a P2/P3 motherboard with support for more than 512MB, its a rare setup using RDRAM, or an ever rarer 820/820E chipset...or its a VIA or SIS chipset. I'd guess you have a VIA chipset, though SiS is also possible. In VIA and SiS P2/P3 chipsets, you _should_ be able to run 512MB sticks pre slot of 1GB (2 RAM slots) or 1.5GB (3 RAM slots).

You RAM sizes are wrong. RAM is always sold in 'binary' sizes- 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, etc..

BTW, spent a fair amount of time using 'mid range' P3s and celerons with linux. I've still got a P3-866MHz, 256MB, intel 810 chipset/video setup downstairs that I was running up till about 9 months ago. Last install on that system I was using aptosid (Xfce), which is basicly debian sid. It was not slower than Win2000 on the same system, and didnt 'chug' or run slow on the desktop at all.

Last edited by cascade9; 06-30-2011 at 07:51 AM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-30-2011, 04:04 PM   #21
floppy_stuttgart
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Debian like
Posts: 743
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox54 View Post
I know a desktop enviroment contains a window manager, but what does a desktop enviroment consist of? This wouldn't leave me with the command line would it?
hello, I had Win98 on my old machine. look at my blog what I have done:
a) more RAM from 64MB to 768MB (60 Euros). 768 MB is too much; 256MB would have been sufficient
b) new processor (7 Euros)
c) TinyCoreLinux (free)
d) change from WLAN to LAN (with Ethernet adapter in the house: EUR 90)
This is now a rocket.
So far I understood your hardware.. simply use TinyCoreLinux. This is probably enough
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-30-2011, 04:30 PM   #22
Firefox54
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2011
Distribution: Debian, Windows 8
Posts: 73

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
A 750MHz P3 would be slower almost everywhere compared to a celeron 1000MHz.
The think the reason the pentium went faster than the celeron, was because the celeron comp had 2-3 trojan downloaders before it crashed, then I wiped it.
 
Old 07-01-2011, 03:35 AM   #23
mdlinuxwolf
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Distribution: Mepis and Fedora, also Mandrake and SuSE PC-BSD Mint Solaris 11 express
Posts: 378

Rep: Reputation: 41
Pentiums vs Celeron

I had an old Dell tower. It came with a 600 Mhz P-3 and 128 Mb RAM. When I upgraded it to a 1.2 gig Celeron and 756 Mb/RAM, I got a few more good years out of it. A lighter weight distro like Mint or Fedora (a little slow but OK) with Xfce or LXDE would run quite nicely on such a system. Currently, my nephew has inherited my old Dell & he's running Mepis 8.0 on it. He is already burning DVDs and CDs and has installed it on at least one of his friend's machines. He's 12. Who says Linux isn't user friendly?
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 07-01-2011, 03:43 AM   #24
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906Reputation: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox54 View Post
The think the reason the pentium went faster than the celeron, was because the celeron comp had 2-3 trojan downloaders before it crashed, then I wiped it.
Trojans could be the cause, but its not the only possible reason. HDDs, RAM, chipset, video card/video chip, etc. will imapct on speed.
 
Old 07-05-2011, 02:38 AM   #25
mdlinuxwolf
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Distribution: Mepis and Fedora, also Mandrake and SuSE PC-BSD Mint Solaris 11 express
Posts: 378

Rep: Reputation: 41
Speed & older hardware

Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
Trojans could be the cause, but its not the only possible reason. HDDs, RAM, chipset, video card/video chip, etc. will imapct on speed.
I've found that with older hardware its best to offload as many functions from the CPU as possible. Therefore, get an AGP graphics card, a sound card and a network card. If you can, maybe even try a SATA or SCSI daughter board and use that instead of just running the IDE drive off of the motherboard.

At least get a better power supply as well. My older Dell that my nephew has literally every slot filled to help the CPU as much as possible. Its still slow, but perfectly usable. Still, it might be best to upgrade to newer hardware, perhaps a bare metal type of machine or even a basic tower server.
 
Old 07-05-2011, 03:23 AM   #26
EDDY1
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Location: Oakland,Ca
Distribution: wins7, Debian wheezy
Posts: 6,838

Rep: Reputation: 649Reputation: 649Reputation: 649Reputation: 649Reputation: 649Reputation: 649
Quote:
The think the reason the pentium went faster than the celeron, was because the celeron comp had 2-3 trojan downloaders before it crashed, then I wiped it.
I've had that problem before, that's why I moved to linux.
 
Old 07-05-2011, 10:58 AM   #27
Duron
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Distribution: Crunchbang Statler, Mint Debian
Posts: 55

Rep: Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox54 View Post
I like windows 2000 for its speed on my old hardware. I also like the design of the filesystem and the start menu. The only problem I have with windows 2000 is it doesn't work with newer software. Google Chrome refuses to install on anything less than xp sp2. K-Melon just doesn't run, for some reason. Other applications, I just have to add dlls to the system dir.
Then max out your RAM (768MB, presumably) and install XP if Windows is the only OS that meets your needs. Win2k is now outside of long-term support, and you won't find a lot of modern applications running on it today. If you must keep it, you can still run Firefox 4 and Opera 11 perfectly well.


Quote:
Does dual boot on a dell optiplex gx1, pentium 2 with 254 mb ram sound good?
You're gonna want a reeeeeeal lightweight distro. ArchBang (Arch Linux with Openbox) would absolutely fly on a system like that, and you're not stuck with an absolutely barebones system like you would with straight Arch. Barring that, for the best performance you'd be looking at distros like Slitaz, DSL, or even source-based ones like CRUX.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
is GNOME faster than KDE? Hoyeru Ubuntu 10 03-25-2007 01:15 PM
Problem with Fedora Core 3, Samba, gnome & win 2000/XP edesmarais Linux - Networking 21 12-15-2005 01:36 PM
Gnome or Kde which is faster? greppinFunk Linux - General 2 12-15-2003 07:42 AM
Everything being equal, which one is faster, GNOME or KDE? dsuratman Linux - Newbie 3 11-18-2003 12:07 AM
Lilo: Dual boot Debian & Win 2000 mudelf Linux - General 3 11-12-2003 01:55 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration