Could somebody please help me setup a comfortable desktop Linux that isn't going to eat up my hard disk that boots up and launches programs quickly, even on 'old' hardware? What are the absolute essentials? The main thing that holds me back from switching from Windows is that Linux distros seem to come with far too much stuff installed that I'll never use, even when I'm only installing a 'base system'.

I'll use Win98se (heavily tweaked of course, the only way to use it) as a reference point. Can a Linux distro be setup to be about the same size [< 200Mb], boot at the same speed [lightning fast running on a modern computer and no more than about 15 seconds on anything as low as 200MHz] and use about the same amount of memory while still retaining complete functionality?

Why are modern OSes so bulky anyway? There are a few minor reasons I use XP over 98se as my primary OS: multiple processor support, themes, Lock Taskbar, NTFS, easier USB support and the task manager. But those things really don't justify the extra 1Gb+. Granted, we're talking micro$oft so bulkware is pretty much expected, but how do Linux distros become 1.5Gb monsters when only the base system is installed?

There might be a lot I need to do when I get the system up and running before it'll be as fast as I'd like, but surely there must be a way to remove the unnecessary overhead from the start.

Thankye muchly.

Maybe you should checkout "Damn Small Linux", or Vector Linux.

Also you could simply do a custom install of most any other distro picking only the core packages.

Depends what you mean by bulky. A single slackware CD for example fits the whole OS plus almost every application you could ever expect to find on a standard desktop system. This includes things like e-mail clients, office environments, programming IDEs, and lots of other stuff that really goes beyond the scope of a mere "Operating System".

If you want to get technical then you could call the kernel itself the operating system, and everything else is extra fluff to make the operating system actually useful to the user.

have you tied light weight distro's lile Feather or Damn Small Linux?

DSL is only 50mb... but you can add loads of apps.

i guess they are so big becasuse they have so many apps. the system itself is very small indeed.

maybe try Xubuntu if you want something slightly larger...

Jimage,

Hello and welcome to Linux. You have a lot of choices out there. I am new too, but I will try to help.

1. Look at DSL linux. That distribution comes with a slim window manager and applications. Granted it is built to fit on a 50 MB business card, but it is an example of how slim Linux can be while remaining a friendly desktop.

I believe the minimum you need is the base configuration +X +window manager.
Have fun, and check www.distrowatch.com
Mohtech

Windows Xp is dated 2001 and it 's only 1GB, modern linux distro can be dated 2006 so it is normal if linux comsume 1.5GB, wait until vista is released and you will know the different between the monster windows and linux.

If you like window 98 because it's small, you may try damn small linux (small enough to fit on a USB drive).

PS:
Or you can try Red Hat 2.0 -- just a joke

there's lots of small ones out there.

puppy has a lot of followers.......

I forgot to mention, I've tried a couple of distros, including DSL and Puppy. However, they're designed as LiveCDs and their HDD installs feel like they're tacked on as an afterthought. Plus the window managers they use didn't impress me at all, and I had no idea how to customise them [keyboard shortcuts, drag and drop launch bar, for example--simple things that are taken for granted in Windows land].

I've also experimented with Zenwalk and Ubuntu. I don't remember what turned me off Zenwalk, and I may yet try it again. Ubuntu has a nice interface, but it's far too large and takes ages to load by default, even with only the entries listed as 'Required' in the installation (IIRK, 1.5Gb even without a window manager--not sure though, it was all kind of a blur, but too big for my liking).

Indeed. I'm getting out of the M$ world as fast as I can, before Vista has a chance to supplant itself as my primary OS (I don't see how it could, but then I could never see how XP could replace 98 for me either).

I'm just after a basic system that gets me to a GUI, with whatever software is required to modify settings, browse files and whatnot (ie. Win98 has Control Panel, Explorer, and a few accessories like Calc and Notepad). Maybe what I'm after is as you say, though: just the kernel and enough to operate a CLI and nothing more, which I can build up from there using only the packages and sources I want. I don't know how to do that, though, so it's probably a better idea to start at a higher level and try something like that when I actually have some experience.

Maybe it's time I gave DSL another whirl. Has anybody used it as their primary OS on a fast (>1GHz) computer? Is it viable for such a purpose? What about getting a copy of Slackware [and doing a customised light install--would that achieve a similar result? Perhaps another distro would be better?

The more I read about Linux, the more confused I get about which path to take. I'm still trying to sort out in my head how to communicate what I'm looking for. Half the battle with things like this is asking the right questions, so please bear with me.

Thanks so far.

i've run kde 3.4.x on an 850mzh machine using Vector linux and it was quite fast. No problem at all.... I currently have a full slackware install on it and it's nice.....

i was suggesting Xubuntu rather than normal ubuntu - it has a xfce rather than gnome.

something like mepis lite.....

like i said i've used vector quite happily. i know what you mean about dsl. I dont find it that useable. but for 50mb i'm impressed...

Another option: Arch Linux
I have been slowly getting this setup on another partition. It is a very nice route to getting a minimal system and addin only what you need. Great learning tool, also.

yeah i'd go with arch linux too, its a 686 optimized distro with the ability to build your own desktop from just a small base install. And you can use a nice fast window manager like openbox/fluxbox/pekwm with a file manager like pcmanfm/thunar, who needs gnome and kde anyway .

By the way why is linux so much faster then windows and as said 1gb for just a 100% flawed IE and bare os with outdated windoZ messenger? while in linux u have 1.5 gb for .... kinda everything u r gonna need + everything else ? why difference in performance and size (file size)

DSL not only install itself on the HDD in a few minutes (I mean it), but it has a smartest way of being loaded from a 50MB image from you HDD. You may want to look in this post that fully describes how to do so

As for me I run Arch linux, as it is the easiest configurable (one takes what he wants for his hardware/experience + learn fast). I have it running on my Dell L400 64MB RAM with 500-700MHz with this desktop (this screen is from my main desktop PC but is the same on my laptop only @1024x768) with latest e17-cvs packages for Arch linux :
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/931...iker2zm.th.jpg http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6...vlad4we.th.jpg
That 64MB laptop takes 37 sec from Off to fully loaded desktop with suspend2/hibernate, that I activated with one 310 KB package & pressing an icon on the menu

Last WE I installed it on a 300MHz Celeron with 128MB RAM for a friend that was tired of Win98 lacking USB facilities, with XFCE4 desktop. And believe me, it runs fast + takes less than 1GB on his HDD, including every apps he needs

you can greatly increase your speed toby using a lightweight windows manager as well. I have been using OpenBox 3 for a while now and love it.

Who cares about 200mhz computers? You can buy cpu's 5x as fast for the price of a "Happy Meal." I think this is kind of pointless.

Why not put hardware that would otherwise be laying around to good use, though?

I honestly don't have a lot of experience with most of the distros mentioned here, but I have heard some good things about them. I would just take Slackware and install the bare minimum, myself. That's likely a bit more work than most of the options suggested, though.