SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
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.
Distribution: Windows 8.1. Attempting to get Slack 14.1 working.
Posts: 147
Rep:
Which Slack for older machine?
I want to set up a FTP box for my home, and I have an old Dell Dimension 4100. I don't know the specific specs as I got it for free from the company I work for, but here is a basic rundown:
Pentium 3
384MB of PC100 RAM
200GB of Disk Space.
10/100 NIC Card
VGA Graphics.
I was curious which version of Slackware would be the most optimum for this kind of machine? Can I use Slack 12, or should I use one of the older versions of it. Like I said, it is going to be a dedicated FTP box, so I won't be bothered using an older kernel version. Any suggestions?
The only reason not to run X would be the amount of RAM, and the CPU speed, Nothing to do with the "age" of the machine. If it runs Slack, it will run X.
Distribution: Slackware 12 Kernel 2.6.24 - probably upgraded by now
Posts: 1,054
Rep:
Run Slack 12, but remember to recompile the kernel or at the very LEAST use the generic kernel after install ... huge kernel wil really screw this machine up.
When I saw the title of this thread: "Which Slack for older machine" I thought it was about OLDER machines.
I still have Slackware 4.0 running on a "headless" 486 laptop (the screen is broken). It has 20MB of memory and a 300MB hard-drive. It is connected to my network by a 3Com PCMCIA card.
I access it through ssh and no, it doesn't run X
You shouldn't have a problem using this hardware with Slackware 12. You could even use 'X' on it. I would suggest XFCE or Fluxbox.
I rebuild the Dell 4100s all the time and they make a good cheap machine. The memory is sufficient but to increase will be minimal cost for the pc100. If you do increase the memory, look into using a ramdisk to speed things up even more.
For a FTP or file server on a small LAN the machine will meet your needs for a light to moderate load.
I've got Slackware 11 running beautifully on my Pentium III-800 MHz machine with 384 MB of RAM. KDE is quick and responsive. WindowMaker is even quicker. I SSH into this machine and remotely run applications from it on my laptop while my wife is using it too, and I haven't noticed any problems with speed.
Slackware 11 is definitely quicker on this machine than Windows XP -- every time I boot into XP I start to get impatient.
I figure that Slackware 12 would probably do as well as 11, but I haven't upgraded because Slackware 11 is running so well.
The gain for that machine would be negligible if you move to Slackware 12. I've got Slackware 10 & 11 on several machines that are still working. No need to change just to get the newest. Some of the older hardware is just not worth the change on it. To much work for such a small gain.
Slack 12 should run great with some lightweight software. Specialy the window manager.
Like IceWM, FluxBox....
You name it.
And ofcourse then use other lightwieght software.
I.e. Firefox will might run really slow on it, but some lightweight browser would be just fine not even notecing the slow machine.
Firefox is not slow on my Pentium III-800. Nor is KDE. Firefox runs about as quickly as on my Dual-Core whatever with a 1GB or Ram that I have at work.
People often seem to underestimate the performance of older computers.
Firefox is not slow on my Pentium III-800. Nor is KDE. Firefox runs about as quickly as on my Dual-Core whatever with a 1GB or Ram that I have at work.
People often seem to underestimate the performance of older computers.
Regards,
-Drew
Hi,
I agree that sometimes people do underestimate the performance for older hardware. Sometimes you cannot install or rather it's a problem to install the newest on 'OLDER' systems. Yes, there's a limitation so some choices must be made by the user.
You wouldn't expect Slackware 12 with the 2.6 kernel to perform as well on a i486 system since most of the subsystems would require a lot of tweaking if the support is even there. Not saying it couldn't be done but why not use a Slackware 8 ,9 or even 10/11 to work on this class. Much easier to configure this class since the subsystems are still supported for the earlier releases.
Heck, I use Slackware 8/9/10/11 on IBM 760el laptops for controllers. The release level I choose depends on the laptop configuration for a controller.
You just can't make a blanket statement to cover all hardware. I'm not challenging you here but making a statement that the hardware/software should be matched as close as the user can feasibly do.
Firefox is not slow on my Pentium III-800. Nor is KDE. Firefox runs about as quickly as on my Dual-Core whatever with a 1GB or Ram that I have at work.
People often seem to underestimate the performance of older computers.
Regards,
-Drew
I used Firefox as an example.
I've tried KDE on a 700MHz beast and it ran slower than on my 3100 Sempron. But it was still usable.
I'm not saying that is not possible to run newer/heavier SW on a slower/older machine, but it will run slower, at least a bit.
Heck, KDE is even slow(er) on my 3100 Sempron compared to IceWM, but still very "workable".
So if you're a type that would like to have the app started "before you even click the icon" then any lightweight WM on that machine is far better for you than KDE or GNOME.
Firefox is not slow on my Pentium III-800. Nor is KDE. Firefox runs about as quickly as on my Dual-Core whatever with a 1GB or Ram that I have at work.
People often seem to underestimate the performance of older computers.
Regards,
-Drew
Agreed, I have slack on my p3 with 256 mb of ram, and kde does not slow it down one bit, I can run firefox easily and its just as quick as my friends pentium D with 1 gb of ram
My first foray into Linux was Slackware 10 on my old computer: AMD Duron 1.3 GHz with only 111 MB RAM (it was supposed to be 128, no idea where the other 17 got to). I can't remember having any problems at all.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.