LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-14-2008, 05:20 AM   #1
Hevoos
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2007
Distribution: Debian Lenny, Slackware 12
Posts: 22

Rep: Reputation: 15
Installing Slackware on old PC


I'm using an old PC (Intel Celeron 600MHz with 196MB RAM) right now with Debian etch. The problem is that this machine is so slow with Debian. Will it help installing Slackware 12 on this? If it would be faster, do I need only the first disc?
 
Old 02-14-2008, 06:23 AM   #2
phodopus
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Slackware 13.0
Posts: 62

Rep: Reputation: 15
Would you like to use a Desktop Environment (KDE or so) or just the 'textual' Linux?

Your computer is definately to slow to run a modern KDE or GNOME version on it...

Why would you use Slackware 12?
 
Old 02-14-2008, 06:46 AM   #3
Lycanthrope
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: The Frozen Tundra
Distribution: FreeBSD, Slackware
Posts: 9

Rep: Reputation: 0
That machine should do good with fluxbox and ok with XFCE but I would forget about running Gnome or KDE. You will need disks 1 and 2 for a complete install (deselect the KDE packages). My son's box is an old P3 with 128 Meg of RAM and Slack 12 w/ XFCE runs fairly nicely on it.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 06:57 AM   #4
swampdog2002
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Distribution: Slackware 12.2, 13.0, openSUSE 11.2
Posts: 400

Rep: Reputation: 33
I'm running Debian Etch on a Pentium 3 @450 MHz w/ 128 MB of RAM, and it is fairly fast for me. Are you using the default kernel? I compiled a customized version of the kernel for my machine, but am not using it for resource intensive tasks such as watching videos and such. Anyway, I have read around the Slackware forum that older computers usually fare better with versions 11.0 and below. Also, as mentioned, your choice of windowing environment is a big factor as well for performance.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 06:58 AM   #5
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Distribution: Slackware, Void
Posts: 7,341

Rep: Reputation: 3743Reputation: 3743Reputation: 3743Reputation: 3743Reputation: 3743Reputation: 3743Reputation: 3743Reputation: 3743Reputation: 3743Reputation: 3743Reputation: 3743
I run Slackware on older hardware. XFce will run on that unit. Flux would also be a good choice. Also when you set-up your root partition I recommend that you choose JFS. The JFS uses less system resources than ext3.

Last edited by hitest; 02-14-2008 at 06:59 AM.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 07:13 AM   #6
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301
There's a good chance it will be faster with Slackware. I also recommend Fluxbox, or IceWM or Windowmaker, something light. And JFS for filesystem, bucause it uses much less CPU time then other filesystems, just what is needed with limited resources.

As for CDs you will need, that will be CD 1 and CD 2. As for the rest CD 3 contains internationalization support, and CDs 4-6 contain source code for the programs on the other CDs.

Last edited by H_TeXMeX_H; 02-14-2008 at 07:15 AM.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 09:50 AM   #7
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Central Florida 20 minutes from Disney World
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 13,922
Blog Entries: 44

Rep: Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hevoos View Post
I'm using an old PC (Intel Celeron 600MHz with 196MB RAM) right now with Debian etch. The problem is that this machine is so slow with Debian. Will it help installing Slackware 12 on this? If it would be faster, do I need only the first disc?
I've got a box running in that class of a machine. You should max out the memory if possible.

I would suggest a lite desktop as others have pointed out. I run kde at times on the machine but XFCE is much better.

BTW, you will need the Slackware 12 cd1, cd2 and if you want KDEi then cd3.

You could roll back to Slackware 10.2 or 11 without a problem. Really no gain for this hardware with Slackware 12.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 10:04 AM   #8
Drakeo
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Urbana IL
Distribution: Slackware, Slacko,
Posts: 3,716
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 483Reputation: 483Reputation: 483Reputation: 483Reputation: 483
like onebuck said slack would work but I would use xfce as default browser. this would keep the ram consumption way down or slack 10.2 also.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 10:06 AM   #9
Drakeo
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Urbana IL
Distribution: Slackware, Slacko,
Posts: 3,716
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 483Reputation: 483Reputation: 483Reputation: 483Reputation: 483
if you could find a older mandrake 8.1 8.0 I have it running on a old lap top from 1999 and it runs very fast. there are alot of scaled back linux version puppy linux 2.0 will bring it back to life.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 12:51 PM   #10
Hevoos
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2007
Distribution: Debian Lenny, Slackware 12
Posts: 22

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Thank you for all the replies!

Would Slackware 11 be much faster than 12? I would still like the HAL and other features (I need it to mount my mp3, phone etc), but I guess that's possible with Slack 11 aswell?

The reason I want to change is that my DE (openbox, so no bloat) takes like 30 seconds to start, apps like urxvt (which should be lightweight) take 20-30 seconds to start and the only webbrowser that's working at an efficient speed is links2 (I'm creating webpages so this is not so good).

Last edited by Hevoos; 02-14-2008 at 12:58 PM.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 03:34 PM   #11
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301
Strange .... nothing should be taking that long to load, I think some background process may be munching resources without you knowing. Have you tried disabling some of them ?

I think Slackware 11.0 and 12.0 are similar in their startup speeds, one major difference is in 11.0 you can choose to use a 2.4.x kernel or 2.6.x, whereas in 12.0 you can only use 2.6.x kernels. You can probably use either.

Last edited by H_TeXMeX_H; 02-14-2008 at 03:36 PM.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 04:04 PM   #12
adriv
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Diessen, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware 15
Posts: 700

Rep: Reputation: 43
I recently installed SW 10.2 (2.4 kernel) on exactly the same machine (with KDE!) and it's not a fast and furious monster, but a lot better than expected. Booting time and starting up KDE is a bit slower, but once started, it's quite reasonable.
 
Old 02-14-2008, 06:56 PM   #13
ludist
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Greece
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 170

Rep: Reputation: 21
You need RAM (at least 256).

PIII @ 500Mhz: no problems. I prefer... icewm, but xfce is also nice.

I din't noticed speed differences between Slackware 10.1 - 12
 
Old 02-15-2008, 02:22 AM   #14
shadowsnipes
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,443

Rep: Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hevoos View Post
Thank you for all the replies!

Would Slackware 11 be much faster than 12? I would still like the HAL and other features (I need it to mount my mp3, phone etc), but I guess that's possible with Slack 11 aswell?

The reason I want to change is that my DE (openbox, so no bloat) takes like 30 seconds to start, apps like urxvt (which should be lightweight) take 20-30 seconds to start and the only webbrowser that's working at an efficient speed is links2 (I'm creating webpages so this is not so good).
If you want HAL/DBus/udev support then you should install Slackware 12. But yes, you can still mount stuff without it, so installing an older version of Slackware should would work for you.

Debian with openbox shouldn't run that slow on your hardware. Before installing a new OS I recommend using something like the ultimate boot cd to make sure your hard drive is all OK.

With that little amount of RAM be sure to give yourself some extra swap space as well (say 512MB total). I recommend upgrading the RAM if you can. If you have two hardrives put your swap on the other one so that it can run in parallel with the one accessing Linux files.

As others said before: Slackware 12 with no KDE installed, JFS filesystem, Fluxbox WM. You can also help yourself out some if you build a custom kernel and disable any services (look under /etc/rc.d) you don't need (just taking away their executable perms should do it).
 
Old 02-15-2008, 05:46 AM   #15
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Central Florida 20 minutes from Disney World
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 13,922
Blog Entries: 44

Rep: Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158Reputation: 3158
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hevoos View Post
Thank you for all the replies!

Would Slackware 11 be much faster than 12? I would still like the HAL and other features (I need it to mount my mp3, phone etc), but I guess that's possible with Slack 11 aswell?

The reason I want to change is that my DE (openbox, so no bloat) takes like 30 seconds to start, apps like urxvt (which should be lightweight) take 20-30 seconds to start and the only webbrowser that's working at an efficient speed is links2 (I'm creating webpages so this is not so good).
I forgot to include a reason for rolling back to earlier version of any distribution and that is legacy hardware. Not all new OS will support older hardware. The Processor and hardware are circa 1999-2000 and you will not have support across the board. That's not saying Slackware 12 can't be made to work but it would be better to use earlier versions since less problems.

Sure if you want udev/HAL then Slackware 12 but the 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on Slackware 11 are good. The 2.4 kernel is very stable. You would have the option to use the 2.6 if needed with 11.

As for the speed of the release, that will be dependent on the hardware. As I stated you should max out the memory if possible.

For the page load times, that is much too long of a time. Sounds like you don't have something setup properly for the inet. What about your DNS? How do you have the '/etc/resolv.conf' file search setup?

Did you try links without the desktop?
 
  


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
Installing Slackware to loop file from EXISTING Slackware simopal6 Slackware 12 06-24-2010 11:59 PM
Im installing SlackWare 10.0 Shadow-X Linux - Distributions 2 08-05-2004 12:07 AM
Some Help Installing Slackware 9.1 p3ngu!n Linux - Newbie 8 11-15-2003 03:17 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:07 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