LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
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 09-13-2005, 10:19 AM   #1
ml2mst
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Maastricht (NL)
Distribution: Kubuntu
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
Question 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

Last edited by ml2mst; 09-13-2005 at 10:24 AM.
 
Old 09-13-2005, 10:48 AM   #2
Gato Azul
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: /dev/null
Distribution: CentOS, Ubuntu
Posts: 128

Rep: Reputation: 16
Slackware Requirements

From the Slackware Website:
Quote:
Slackware Linux doesn't require an extremely powerful system to run (though having one is quite nice . It will run on systems as far back as the 486. Below is a list of minimum system requirements needed to install and run Slackware.

* 486 processor
* 16MB RAM (32MB suggested)
* 100-500 megabytes of hard disk space for a minimal and around 3.5GB for full install
* 3.5" floppy drive

Additional hardware may be needed if you want to run the X Window System at a usable speed or if you want network capabilities.
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:
Quote:
We are also known as the fastest non-source distro on the planet!
Hope that helps!

Last edited by Gato Azul; 09-13-2005 at 10:49 AM.
 
Old 09-13-2005, 10:48 AM   #3
uopjohnson
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: San Francisco
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, RHEL, OS X
Posts: 159

Rep: Reputation: 30
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.
 
Old 09-13-2005, 10:50 AM   #4
uopjohnson
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: San Francisco
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, RHEL, OS X
Posts: 159

Rep: Reputation: 30
oh. Beat out... and by a more informative post. Must type faster...
 
Old 09-13-2005, 05:03 PM   #5
Vgui
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Canada
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 496

Rep: Reputation: 31
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.
 
Old 09-13-2005, 07:03 PM   #6
Cirilobeto
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 8

Rep: Reputation: 0
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.
 
Old 09-13-2005, 09:35 PM   #7
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,552

Rep: Reputation: 1603Reputation: 1603Reputation: 1603Reputation: 1603Reputation: 1603Reputation: 1603Reputation: 1603Reputation: 1603Reputation: 1603Reputation: 1603Reputation: 1603
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.
 
Old 09-13-2005, 10:44 PM   #8
PaganHippie
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: Ecotopia
Distribution: Ubuntu 7.04 'Feisty' & 6.06 'Dapper'; Debian 4.0 'Etch'
Posts: 119

Rep: Reputation: 15
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.
 
Old 09-14-2005, 04:41 AM   #9
Ike M.
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Posts: 60

Rep: Reputation: 15
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
 
Old 09-14-2005, 05:28 AM   #10
killerbob
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 662

Rep: Reputation: 30
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.
 
Old 09-14-2005, 07:36 AM   #11
masonm
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Following the white rabbit
Distribution: Slackware64 14.2 Solus
Posts: 2,264

Rep: Reputation: 51
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.
 
Old 11-23-2005, 07:41 AM   #12
Bruce Hill
HCL Maintainer
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: McCalla, AL, USA
Distribution: Gentoo (all servers at work are openSUSE)
Posts: 6,937

Rep: Reputation: 128Reputation: 128
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.
 
Old 11-23-2005, 08:57 AM   #13
GlowGlow
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Posts: 111

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by killerbob
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.
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.
 
Old 11-23-2005, 09:19 AM   #14
malo_umoran
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Desktop: Slackware 13.1 &13.37 | Server: Debian 6.0
Posts: 270

Rep: Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally posted by killerbob
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.

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.
 
Old 11-23-2005, 09:49 AM   #15
Bruce Hill
HCL Maintainer
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: McCalla, AL, USA
Distribution: Gentoo (all servers at work are openSUSE)
Posts: 6,937

Rep: Reputation: 128Reputation: 128
Quote:
Originally posted by malo_umoran
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.
Not according to Patrick Volkerding. I will quote him here:
Quote:
[14:02] <volkerdi> There is essentially _no_ difference in speed between -march=i686, and -march=i486 -mcpu=i686 (which Slackware uses). Run benchmarks and you'll see. By going -march=i686 all you're doing is preventing people with old machine from running the software.
This is from the log of ##slackware on irc.freenode.net where Pat appeared
on January 14, 2005.
 
  


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
Minimum system requirements vital_101 Ubuntu 6 05-14-2007 10:43 PM
minimum system requirements for amigoxp? war2004 Amigo 1 06-05-2005 02:34 AM
Does anybody know the minimum system requirements for Ubuntu? manhinli Linux - Software 1 06-02-2005 02:01 AM
minimum system requirements for Redhat 9 villieb Linux - Newbie 1 04-18-2004 12:07 PM
Minimum system requirements hnmiv Linux - General 7 12-09-2001 03:00 PM

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

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 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
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration