LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
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 09-15-2007, 09:31 PM   #1
steve617
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2007
Posts: 31

Rep: Reputation: 15
What version ?


I have an older PC that I want to run Linnux on. My older PC that I have not been using has currently Windows 98se. `Here is my PC specs. Its been a while so I may not be accurate. I have a CD drive (no DVD) 384 MB RAM. My processor is a Celeron 650 Mhz (I think) My hard drives is small I think a 6.2 Gig and a 2.0 gig. I was thinking about adding a 40 gig external then I can use perhaps one of the smaller HD for my Linux OS. Mostly use some office applications and using the internet. Thanks for suggestions on the Linux version that would work best for my older PC
 
Old 09-15-2007, 09:53 PM   #2
Bruce Hill
HCL Maintainer
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: McCalla, AL, USA
Distribution: Fedora, Gentoo, Ubuntu (all servers at work are openSUSE)
Posts: 6,931

Rep: Reputation: 128Reputation: 128
Welcome to LQ!

The Slackware Linux Project
 
Old 09-15-2007, 10:05 PM   #3
SilentSam
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Ottawa
Distribution: Arch Linux/Kubuntu/OpenSUSE
Posts: 300

Rep: Reputation: 37
From seeing your specs, I'd say you could pretty much run everything at a decent speed, with the exceptions of OpenSUSE and Fedora. But for quick performance and easy installation:

-Zenwalk
-Xubuntu
-PCLinuxOS
-DSL
-Puppy

Harder installation (but still quick performance):
-Gentoo
-Arch
-Slackware

All the bells and whistles, but maybe a noticeable performance drop:
-Kubuntu
-Mepis
-Ubuntu
 
Old 09-15-2007, 11:23 PM   #4
linux obsessed
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2007
Location: /home
Distribution: Linux
Posts: 25
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
may
slax (slackware based)
dsl (debian based)
 
Old 09-15-2007, 11:25 PM   #5
AceofSpades19
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Chilliwack,BC.Canada
Distribution: Slackware64 -current
Posts: 2,079

Rep: Reputation: 58
slax is a live cd distro
 
Old 09-16-2007, 04:17 AM   #6
Bruce Hill
HCL Maintainer
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: McCalla, AL, USA
Distribution: Fedora, Gentoo, Ubuntu (all servers at work are openSUSE)
Posts: 6,931

Rep: Reputation: 128Reputation: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentSam View Post
Harder installation (but still quick performance):
-Gentoo
-Arch
-Slackware
Slackware is NOT a hard installation. Not to be rude, but if you can't figure out how to install Slackware, you don't need to be doing this yourself. You need to let someone else.

There is plenty of documentation available for anyone who wants to read and learn a little new terminology. The problem with most people is they've only run Windows, which is a poorly coded operating system that hides everything behind GUIs. So most people have never read anything; expect to have drivers on CDs for everything; and don't want to search for any answers.

It's much harder to install some of those "easy-distros" IMO. And once installed, there is NO Linux distribution that outperforms Slackware ... period.
 
Old 09-16-2007, 02:47 PM   #7
SilentSam
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Ottawa
Distribution: Arch Linux/Kubuntu/OpenSUSE
Posts: 300

Rep: Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Hill View Post
Slackware is NOT a hard installation.

...

There is plenty of documentation available for anyone who wants to read and learn a little new terminology. The problem with most people is they've only run Windows, which is a poorly coded operating system that hides everything behind GUIs. So most people have never read anything;
I didn't say it was hard, I said it was harder then the previously mentioned distros. I agree with the comment about reading.

For the record, I found Arch's install to be very easy as well, but from the percentage of comments put in this forum, I usually inform people that others have found it difficult.
 
Old 09-16-2007, 09:10 PM   #8
AceofSpades19
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Chilliwack,BC.Canada
Distribution: Slackware64 -current
Posts: 2,079

Rep: Reputation: 58
what is so difficult about a text based installer?
 
Old 09-17-2007, 04:54 AM   #9
SilentSam
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Ottawa
Distribution: Arch Linux/Kubuntu/OpenSUSE
Posts: 300

Rep: Reputation: 37
OK, honestly... I'm actually kind of laughing here. Slackware is not for most newbies, so try not to make it out like it is. I think it's pretty important when recommending a distro like Slackware, Arch, or Gentoo to someone new to Linux to let them know what to expect when going down this route. For Slackware, even if you you say it's installer is the same difficulty as let's say Mepis (just for the sake of saying something), you still have to take into account that you're compiling software from source for packages not included in the install process, and your system config is done via CLI. I know I can do this, and the next Slacker can do this, but this is not for everyone. Once the system is up and running there are advantages, but it does take that extra knowledge to get there. If I bring up the fact that Slackware IS more advanced of a distro, please try not to take it like I just ran over your dog <just a friendly jest, noone actually responded like that>.

Last edited by SilentSam; 09-17-2007 at 04:56 AM.
 
Old 09-17-2007, 07:12 AM   #10
salasi
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: Directly above centre of the earth, UK
Distribution: SuSE, plus some hopping
Posts: 4,064

Rep: Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894
Wink

Quote:
I have a CD drive (no DVD) 384 MB RAM.
It will make life easier for you if you get a distro that comes on CD(s) and not on a DVD. I wouldn't try to ftp something off the 'net, but buy a set of disk from a cheap disk emporium or get them 'free' with a magazine (but remember - most of the things that come with magazines are DVDs and that's not what you want).

It'll will probably take you a few tries at installation before you are truly comfortable with it, so investing the few $// other currency in it will be worthwhile.

The exact best organisation for supplying you with Linux CDs depends on your geographical location, so i have no immediate advice on that.

Quote:
My processor is a Celeron 650 Mhz (I think)
That's fine. Not fire-breathing by any means, but workable.

Quote:
My hard drives is small I think a 6.2 Gig and a 2.0 gig.
A 2 gig must really be ancient. Consider ripping out and donating to a museum :-) (Although note that I'm poor at taking my own advice - I've still got a 1.2 G around here somewhere.)

Quote:
I was thinking about adding a 40 gig external then I can use perhaps one of the smaller HD for my Linux OS. Mostly use some office applications and using the internet.
Unless having a 40 G external one has other uses for you (maybe backing up other computers), consider pulling out the 2 G one and fitting the 40 G internally. Alternatively, if you buy a DIY external USB drive box, you could fit the 40 G to it (first task - backing up existing data) and later go on to use that same box to fit an external DVD writer to. Actually, these days its even a bit difficult to buy drives as small as 40 G, and you might find that 80 G is the smallest that is locally economically available.

If you do do anything with USB, I'd guess that a computer of this age will only have an early version of the USB interface (works with later USB devices but not at the speed of the later USB devices) and you may well be limited in number of USB interfaces.

Quote:
Thanks for suggestions on the Linux version that would work best for my older PC
Err, I've actually got a lower spec laptop than this with OpenSuSE/KDE on it, and it works fine. Performance is a bit gradual, but it does the job (and SuSE and Fedora have been mentioned as the two 'least likely to', although SuSE isn't as bad as it once was, with the exception of the install, which is mega-tedious.)

Firstly, you'll find the 'big hitters' in the GUI world, KDE and Gnome to be the slowest of the user interfaces. You may find them tolerable, or you may not, but I'd say you want at least the option of a smaller, faster-on-its feet UI (say XFCE).

Secondly, the big Office Suite on Linux, OpenOffice, is a bit of a resource hog. For light home use there are smaller adequate alternatives, but if you need the best MS Office compatibilty, you probably need OO. Do try Gnumeric (WP) and abiword (spreadsheet) though; they are lighter.

Right; having done all that boxing you in (CD, GUI, office apps), I'd say anything that fits the bill on those will do the job. Some things will be easier and some things will be better supported than others.

Anything specifically designed to fit on a business card CD or a USB drive, won't have the bigger bloated apps (they just won't fit!), so anything of that form will be a good thing to try. DSL and Puppy have both been mentioned already and I'd have to say that you should try at least one of those. I'd go for DSL, but that is very much a preference thing as there are similarities.

Out of the bigger distros, I think I'd give the Ubuntu family a go. I point out family because Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu are the Gnome/KDE/XFCE versions of the basic Ubuntu distribution. If you install, say Ubuntu, you can just add XFCE if that's what you want to do, and then have the choice between XFCE and Gnome (and maybe then add kde as well). But this makes the assumption that you download a lot of 'stuff' if you want to do this via the net, and you may not be in that situation.

Whatever got said elsewhere, I don't see slackware as being a good choice for 'my first distro' unless you have a history of liking the command line. In independent testing, I've seen slackware post results that are actually slower than some of the distro's more reputed for bloat, which I don't understand, but I wouldn't regard the minute differences in benchmarking as relevant to day-to-day use. I just wouldn't expect it to be a whole lot faster either.

In your current situation, I'd also see an advantage in plugging in a 'live CD'; you can have a play around without the risk of breaking anything, and you'll have a better idea of what you want and don't want at the end of it, and so you'll be better placed to make an informed choice when you've done it. The Live CDs do tend to be noticeably slower, but provided that you factor that in to your evaluation it isn't a problem (some will copy themselves into ram - which is fine and speedy if you don't run out of ram, but isn't if you do).

You might also want to have at look at Distro Chooser at http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/
which will ask some questions and come up with a recommendation.
 
Old 09-18-2007, 06:42 AM   #11
steve617
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2007
Posts: 31

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Let me resubmit my needs. On my old PC I have a 4 gig and a 2 gig. I am going to reformat my hard drive. My question is? Are there a Linux that I could load straight off of DOS. That way I would not have to rely on Windows. The only version of Windows I can load is 95 but I do have a 98 SE upgrade. That way I could use all of the 4 gig. By the way there are several 40 gig external hard drives available. This PC is just going to be use to experiment with but I do want it workable. On my main PC I am planning on getting one of the better Linux OS. It has a 2.23Ghz processor. 2GB Ram. I will get one of the DVD versions for it. The downside to it is I just have 15 GB left on my hard drive. I will probably go with one of the DVD Live versions on it. Thankd for more details.
 
Old 09-18-2007, 01:37 PM   #12
Wim Sturkenboom
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Distribution: Slackware 10.1/10.2/12, Ubuntu 12.04, Crunchbang Statler
Posts: 3,786

Rep: Reputation: 282Reputation: 282Reputation: 282
You install Linux by booting from CD, not from another Operating system. Requirement is that your system must be able to boot from CD or that you can create a boot floppy in some way (it's to long ago that I used that).
 
  


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
Regarding distribution + kernel version + gcc version + glib version. JCipriani Linux - General 8 04-19-2008 03:54 PM
Xfree Error (EE) module ABI minor version (7) is newer than the server's version (6) jimdaworm Slackware 0 10-17-2003 06:26 PM
Xfree prob radeon.o kernel module version is 1.1.1 but version 1.5.0 or newer needed. jimdaworm Slackware 0 10-01-2003 07:27 PM
Sample Driver Module incompatibility with Kernel version (or gcc version) jvs Linux - General 1 06-07-2002 02:40 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.

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