LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-07-2007, 10:52 AM   #1
ngjunkie0011
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Location: New York
Distribution: Ubuntu Studio
Posts: 105

Rep: Reputation: 15
Linux Distro that doesn't use a lot of resources


Which distro do you recommend that doesn't use a lot of resources?

And I'm not talking about DSL, I want to install the distro on an old desktop computer.

I have a Pentium II with about 384MB of memory and about a 2 gig hard drive.

I installed SuSE 10.2 but it's painly slow!!!!

I plan on using the distro mainly for web browsing and light text editing, if any, and playing mp3z.

I do need the GUI interface, that's a must!

Which distro would you recommend?

I'll appreciate all your input!
 
Old 09-07-2007, 11:02 AM   #2
kilgoretrout
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,983

Rep: Reputation: 388Reputation: 388Reputation: 388Reputation: 388
Take a look at zenwalk:

http://www.zenwalk.org/

or puppy linux:

http://www.puppylinux.org/user/viewpage.php?page_id=1
 
Old 09-07-2007, 11:05 AM   #3
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Debian Testing
Posts: 19,192
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475
Try changing the desktop to Fluxbox or similar lightweight desktop. KDE and Gnome are resource heavy and not suited to a slower, older PC. Alternatively, use Slackware or Debian or Puppy or.... - but don't use KDE/Gnome when you do decide.
 
Old 09-07-2007, 11:08 AM   #4
weibullguy
ReliaFree Maintainer
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Distribution: Slackware 14.2
Posts: 2,815
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 261Reputation: 261Reputation: 261
Linux from Scratch with Icewm, Fluxbox, Blackbox, or twm window manager.
 
Old 09-07-2007, 11:34 AM   #5
theYinYeti
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: France
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 1,897

Rep: Reputation: 66
Why not DSL? It may be a bit slim for such a "powerfull" machine (I'm not joking) but it would be fast, and it can be made into a kind of Debian once installed on disk. I don't know how its X server would behave with video though...

You could try Debian itself.

Yves.
 
Old 09-07-2007, 01:19 PM   #6
ngjunkie0011
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Location: New York
Distribution: Ubuntu Studio
Posts: 105

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by theYinYeti View Post
Why not DSL? It may be a bit slim for such a "powerfull" machine (I'm not joking) but it would be fast, and it can be made into a kind of Debian once installed on disk. I don't know how its X server would behave with video though...

You could try Debian itself.

Yves.
I hear DSL is mainly for a USB stick or for the Live CD.

What I really want is a distro that is meant to be installed on a desktop environment but that is light weight.

I also don't know if it'll install on the old machine, it had 128MB of memory at first and SuSE 10.2 would complain there wasn't enough memory and ubuntu would stay hung. I had to partition the HD and created a swap partition before SuSE 10.2 would install although it was VERY slow. I now have 384MB of memory on that machine but it's still incredibly slow! When I'm viewing a web page there is a slight delay when you scroll down, it's very slow.

I'm going to go take a look at zenwalk and puppy linux.

If recommend for me to install DSL on the hard drive and if that's a possibility please let me know.

Meanwhile, I'm going to search other threads and find out how I can change from KDE to Flubox or another lightweight desktop on SuSE 10.2 as XavierP suggested.

Thank you everyone for your input, I'll let you know which option works out best!
 
Old 09-07-2007, 02:51 PM   #7
coolb
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2006
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Distribution: Gentoo 2006.1(2.6.17-gentoo-r7)
Posts: 222

Rep: Reputation: 30
gentoo


.
 
Old 09-07-2007, 02:52 PM   #8
Cogar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: It varies, but usually within 100 feet of a keyboard.
Distribution: Fedora 10, Kubuntu 8.04, Puppy 4.1.2, openSUSE 11.2
Posts: 1,126

Rep: Reputation: 52
For older hardware, if you are not afraid of using text-oriented installation and setup tools, both Slackware and Arch will allow the machine to run about as fast as it can. I currently run Arch on an older 550MHz laptop with 192MB of RAM. Although I am using KDE, it seems almost as fast as a "modern" desktop computer for non-demanding tasks like surfing the Internet, sending emails, and watching Flash videos. Let me add that although the setup is "text based," the final user environment can be fully graphical. I believe that any of the desktop environments or window managers is available for both.
 
Old 09-08-2007, 05:47 AM   #9
jacook
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Townsville, Australia
Distribution: PCLinuxOS .93 Junior
Posts: 437

Rep: Reputation: 30
Vector Linux
http://www.vectorlinux.com/

DSL
http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

Puppy Linux
http://www.puppylinux.org/user/viewpage.php?page_id=3

Slackware
http://www.slackware.com/

BeaFanatIX
http://bea.cabarel.com/

Elive:
http://www.elivecd.org/

Luit Linux
http://luitlinux.sarovar.org/
 
Old 09-09-2007, 08:46 AM   #10
Harlin
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA U.S.
Distribution: I play with them all :-)
Posts: 316

Rep: Reputation: 38
In case you're looking for an opinion, I have one for you. If you don't enjoy building or have the time to build your system with Gentoo or don't have the stomach for the arcane but brilliant Linux From Scratch (LFS), I'd have to say Slackware would give you a "modern" Linux very quickly and not usually take up a lot of resources. Why? In a standard install of Slackware very little is turned on unless you turn it on -- which I think for power users is the way it should be. Make sure (as the others on this board have pointed out) you don't use KDE or possibly even Gnome if you want it to run faster on the desktop. Instead, I'd suggest Blackbox or Fluxbox for a minimal desktop. However, the best combination of configurability and performance is handsdown Xfce. I have run this with a box similar to yours with very good results.

Suse is a fine distro (though strange if you work on Redhat/CentOS for a living) but I'd stay away (in the instance of the slower box) from it because it is really a commercial product and made for the masses. Yes even the Open Source version is a commercial product believe it or not -- free yes -- but their hope is to get as many people on the planet as possible using their product. More people are interested in the bells and whistles than those interested in pushing as much as they can out of old hardware. We are starting to become dinosaurs :-). Novell figures (and rightly so) that if you'll use their product then you probably are using a workstation that is either a year or two old at the most. Good luck.

Harlin
 
Old 09-09-2007, 09:05 AM   #11
binutils
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Posts: 59

Rep: Reputation: 15
http://delili.lens.hl-users.com/
 
Old 09-10-2007, 08:49 AM   #12
theYinYeti
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: France
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 1,897

Rep: Reputation: 66
For your information, DSL can indeed be installed on hard drive, and is desktop-oriented. It can run as a LiveCD if you want to first get a look at it.
I found DSL to be very fast on my "nomade" laptop (see signature), to give you an idea. I even started, and switched between, 3 X servers at once (one of them a remote display via SSH) on this poor old laptop, using DSL!!

Now it is true that the choice of environment is very important. I've found (by tests) that IceWM is lighter than Fluxbox. And lately I've come to know JWM, which is lightning fast and lean. None are as configurable as Xfce, though.

Yves.
 
  


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 On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
XORG using a lot of CPU resources GreatBrak Ubuntu 1 12-02-2005 02:56 PM
software RAID 1: does it use a lot of resources? hamish Linux - General 6 07-06-2005 06:46 AM
Ubuntu Hoary - Xorg - take up lot of CPU resources JGJones Linux - Newbie 4 03-06-2005 05:04 PM
Firefox using a lot of system resources Mr. New Linux - Newbie 1 01-15-2005 09:45 PM
best distro....lot of details inside alaios Linux - Distributions 6 03-26-2004 01:54 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33 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
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration