Minimum system requirements for Slackware 10.1
 

Hi there,

Can anyone tell me what the minimum system requirements are for the 10.1 Slack?

Unfortunately i can't find this info at the Slack ware homepage.

I think it's a waist downloading the ISO, if my old school recycle computers don't meet it's requirements... right? ;)

Thanks!

Marti

Slackware Requirements
 

From the Slackware Website:
Notice the last line about running the X Window System. If you plan on using X, you should probably have at least 64MB to 128MB RAM (though I personally would opt for 256MB or more if possible) and wouldn't run much more than Fluxbox, WindowMaker, or XFCE, although if you're the extremely patient type you might be more willing to wait for larger window managers or desktop environments to load.

If you have some really legacy hardware and Slackware doesn't quite cut it in terms of speed, you might want to check out Vector Linux which is based on Slackware, but is supposed to be tuned and tweaked to be even faster and especially good for older hardware. From the Vector Linux Website:
Hope that helps!

I have seen minimal slackware running on all kinds of old hardware. It depends on what you want. If it is new enough to have a cdrom drive you can probably get it going. You are just going to want to pick your packages carefully, for instance you will not want KDE, instead use XFCE or fluxbox. Why don't you post the specs for the system you are looking to install on and see if anyone has similar experience.

oh. Beat out... and by a more informative post. Must type faster...

It depends what you do with the install. I've had a console only Slackware install taking up 140mb space and using 6mb RAM on an old no-name 386. If you plan to use X and get all fancy, then I recommend Vector (standard, not SOHO) for older computers.

well, if it's any help, i'm running slackware 10.1 on the following machine:

-Celeron 300 Mhz, MMX
-256 MB ram
-ATi Rage pro turbo 4mb video
-30 GB hdd (only 6 GB for linux partition)


I usually use Xfce 4.2 as my window manager. performance is reasonable for a computer like this. windows 98 runs faster though. all window managers (kde, gnome, flushbox, etc) run well, some take more time to load, but general use is acceptable.

if you just want it for internet, music, some videos, picture viewing and testing linux is quite acceptable. but if you want good performance get a faster machine.

some websites with many animated graphics load up the processor and that's quite annoying.

I'm running Slackware 10.1 on a Pll 266 with 128 MB RAM and a 4 GB HD. I've run XFce on it. Right now I'm running KDE which is a bit slow for this old box. When 10.2 comes out in a week or two I'll be switching to Flux Box.
So I'd use XFce, Flux, Black Box for older hardware.

If you're running *really* older hardware, you might want to consider using an older version of Slackware. For example, I have a 486 that just screams on Slackware 3.5 (but then again, I don't try to run Xwindows on it).

The older versions aren't all that easy to find anymore, but they *are* still available if you hunt for them.

I also
 

can attest to Slackware performing nicely... it was the ONLY distro I could find that installed successfully onto my Microchannel box

If you are willing to spend the time and effort learning about LINUX, and you download the right distro (mine actually came on a number of floppies. Primitive, I know, but it is the ONLY thing LINUX I could find for Microchannel) your disc will NOT be wasted

If you only intend to run in console mode, you could probably get it running on a '386 DX. Make sure you try the DX, not the SX, however, as there's no math coprocessor on the SX processors, and emulation will slow the system down like you wouldn't believe.

In X windows, you might be able to get it running anyway, but running KDE or Gnome would be a mistake. Heck, XFCE would probably be a mistake on such derelict hardware, and you might find that TWM is the only functional window manager. Console, however, would probably work fine, if a bit slow, on a '386 DX.

The problem is that Slack is compiled for i686 architecture, with some critical libs compiled for i486. There were new CPU commands added between the '386 and the '486 that may be required, and you might find that in order to work properly you'd have to start recompiling.

Seriously, though, I got my first '486 17 years ago. Yes, 1988. If you're seriously trying to run Slack on hardware that's older than that, you need your head examined, as you're more geek than I.

I'm running Slack-current on an old machine someone gave me. Original Pentium @200MHz (slow), 64MB RAM, and only a pair of 3GB harddrives and it runs fine, even using X.

You'll find that Slack will run on older machines that other distros just won't. I didn't even have a cdrom to use for the installation and went the old fashioned way with diskettes for boot and installer and used one of the drive partitions for the installation source files.

My 5 year-old daughter has a Slackware-10.1 install of 150MB.
She has X, running Fluxbox, and everything needed to compile
software (including kernels).

Her machine is an AMD-K6 233Mhz with 128MB RAM (32MB for
onboard video) that's 33Mhz and a 4 GB hard drive. It has a
CD-ROM and uses a PCMCIA card with dongle for ethernet.
It's slow, but it works.

A 386DX doesn't have a coprocessor either. The 486DX is the first CPU with an integrated coprocessor. The 386 SX has an 16-bit external bus, where the DX has a 32-bit external bus. BTW. Slack requires at least a 486 these days.

Slack is compiled for i486, not i686. there are no official packages which are compiled for i686. and it would be nice if it would be i686, because it is really faster.


I have a pentium1 166mhz CPU/32mb RAM/2.1gb HD ... 10.2 with fluxbox, it is running really fast... of course, small custom kernel, no useless support of everything ... running much faster than win95/98.

M.

Not according to Patrick Volkerding. I will quote him here:
This is from the log of ##slackware on irc.freenode.net where Pat appeared
on January 14, 2005.