Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which Linux Distro?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Floris
    replied
    Originally posted by Faruk
    Debian. Debian. Debian.

    Woody distro is virtually impossible to crash.

    Anyhoo, that's my input. Debian rocks high and low, as far as I'm concerned, and blows the others away in most things.
    I agree, I have yet found a system unable to run Debian.

    Leave a comment:


  • filburt1
    replied
    Wow, can't rip off Windows any more than that...

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerry
    replied
    http://www.xpde.com/shots.php

    Leave a comment:


  • RLich8
    replied
    I still can't decide. I think i'm going to try debian though.

    Thanks guys!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerry
    replied
    If you have time try a few ? I used to use Suse a fair amount then RH and BSD, now I mainly use gentoo.

    Leave a comment:


  • codeblu
    replied
    Well with my knowledge of compaq (not a big fan), you might have to manually put the memory location in with most linux distros. The biggest problem that I have had getting a newer version of any kinda of linux distro to work is the supplied video card in the PC. Linux will sometimes work on it without a gui. In my opinion is that linux will run on almost every computer new and old, its the supplied video card compatibility that linux has the biggest issues with.

    Some compaq computers, more so on the old ones have issues with the memory location. So sometimes you would have to issue a command on the boot up like "linux mem=exactmap [email protected] [email protected]" just to get linux to install. But this might not be the issue on your pc. Hope this helps.

    codeblu

    Leave a comment:


  • noppid
    replied
    Originally posted by IDN
    That is for the full of junkie features fedora you are talking about. I ran both Mandrake 8 and Redhat 7.2 on my 133/200mhz machines, with GUI perfectly. There are other operating systems besides Fedora, maybe you should explore them. It seems that you would rather criticism the members here then to be of any help



    Yes, that is your time. If you have more better things to do then have fun and experiment then go do that. No one likes unconstructive criticism and rudeness.

    If you do not like what we are doing on our own time then ignore this thread and go do better things like sit in a chat room all day and treat newbies like crap as it seems you are good at that.
    All that from a guy that opened with an attack on my knowledge means nothing. Take a good hard look at your own words. Too bad you're not mature enough to have a civil debate and disagree without making it personal.

    All that and Ice Cream too! Huh? LMAO

    Have a nice weekend.
    Last edited by noppid; Fri 26 Mar '04, 11:57am.

    Leave a comment:


  • IDN
    replied
    Originally posted by noppid
    Boy you are full of yourself...I've been running Linux for years now. I sit in #fedora all day everyday and see guys like you come back and say, yeah you were right, I could make it work, but it wasn't usable. Read my statement next time before you get so full of your self....I said a GUI wouldn't be usable, I didn't say it wouldn't work.

    As you can see 32MB won't even run the CLI on a 200Mhz machine. And I can tell you from the experience of many others the usability of the GUI on a 400Mhz machine with 256MB is very poor at best. ie. unusable.
    That is for the full of junkie features fedora you are talking about. I ran both Mandrake 8 and Redhat 7.2 on my 133/200mhz machines, with GUI perfectly. There are other operating systems besides Fedora, maybe you should explore them. It seems that you would rather criticism the members here then to be of any help

    Originally posted by noppid
    My time is worth more then the effort to setup and run such an old machine.
    Yes, that is your time. If you have more better things to do then have fun and experiment then go do that. No one likes unconstructive criticism and rudeness.

    If you do not like what we are doing on our own time then ignore this thread and go do better things like sit in a chat room all day and treat newbies like crap as it seems you are good at that.
    Last edited by IDN; Fri 26 Mar '04, 11:41am.

    Leave a comment:


  • noppid
    replied
    Originally posted by sidhighwind
    That's not true. if you go back a few version it will work just fine. I am runnig red hat 6.2 on a dual p133 with 256 megs of ram and it works just fine. it's slow at doing some stuff but it still works. i also have redhat 9 with a gui runnin my my laptop wich is a IBM p233 with 96mb of ram and a 3gb hd and it runs a little slow but still runs faster than windows 9x did on the machine.

    it can be done you just wont be moving very fast. if that ok with you then you can do it.
    Yeah and if I use windows 3.11 I can use any of my junk machines. But let's be serious here. Those Distros are EOL for a reason. These are worthless facts of an age past.

    You made my point in your last statement, it's slow. You guys are mincing words suggesting I said it can't be done. My time is worth more then the effort to setup and run such an old machine. Yours probably is too. The point is to have a usable tool, not one where you can have coffee while Oo loads.

    So what if KDE starts, lets talk productivity here. I could ride my bicycle to California from Florida, but so what. We all know a car or plane is better. Just because it can be done, does not make it practical for use.

    Alot has changed since the 2.2 kernel. Let's talk about current supported Linux code and current packages if we're gonna debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • sidhighwind
    replied
    Originally posted by noppid
    233Mhz with 64 MB RAM aint gonna do a usable GUI, if it does it at all.
    That's not true. if you go back a few version it will work just fine. I am runnig red hat 6.2 on a dual p133 with 256 megs of ram and it works just fine. it's slow at doing some stuff but it still works. i also have redhat 9 with a gui runnin my my laptop wich is a IBM p233 with 96mb of ram and a 3gb hd and it runs a little slow but still runs faster than windows 9x did on the machine.

    it can be done you just wont be moving very fast. if that ok with you then you can do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • noppid
    replied
    He's an anology most should understand...Windows could run on a Pentium 100, but you wouldn't do that.

    The Linux Kernel has the ability to run on old less powerful machines. It's not the do all end all to save old machines once you add packages though, especially the GUI. Keep the specs in perspective. The minimum requirements for the Kernel and the GUI are vastly different and can easily mislead you. Linux is only a Kernel.

    Leave a comment:


  • filburt1
    replied
    Originally posted by bahbah
    I love gentoo but it isnt very newbie friendly if this is your first time playing with linux even though the docs are great.
    I found the documentation to be abismal, but each to his own.

    However Gentoo probably would be good for this as it markets the feature of being optimized. You can install the system in a source code state and compile everything with optimizations for your processor. It would likely take literally days for everything to compile, but it should be at least slightly faster.

    Also, no modern window manager that is included in any distribution is likely to be fast on a machine that old. Linux itself may be, but not the window manager--this is from experience on a faster machine with an older distribution a few years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • noppid
    replied
    Originally posted by IDN
    It doesn't? Strange Linux worked fine on my machines that were 133mhz and 200mhz with 32mb and 64mb ram. It ran quite great in my opinion. Next time you should go off experience and not opinion when giving feedback.
    Boy you are full of yourself...I've been running Linux for years now. I sit in #fedora all day everyday and see guys like you come back and say, yeah you were right, I could make it work, but it wasn't usable. Read my statement next time before you get so full of your self....I said a GUI wouldn't be usable, I didn't say it wouldn't work.

    Fedora Hardware Requirements

    The following information represents the minimum hardware requirements necessary to successfully install Fedora Core 1:

    CPU:

    NOTE: The following CPU specifications are stated in terms of Intel processors. Other processors (notably, offerings from AMD, Cyrix, and VIA) that are compatible with and equivalent to the following Intel processors may also be used with Fedora Core.

    *

    Minimum: Pentium-class

    NOTE: Fedora Core 1 is optimized for Pentium PRO (and later) CPUs, but also supports Pentium-class CPUs. This approach has been taken because Pentium-class optimizations actually result in reduced performance for non-Pentium-class processors.
    *

    Recommended for text-mode: 200 MHz Pentium-class or better
    *

    Recommended for graphical: 400 MHz Pentium II or better

    Hard Disk Space (NOTE: Additional space will be required for user data):

    *

    Custom Installation (Minimal): 520MB
    *

    Server: 870MB
    *

    Personal Desktop: 1.9GB
    *

    Workstation: 2.4GB
    *

    Custom Installation (Everything): 5.3GB

    Memory:

    *

    Minimum for text-mode: 64MB
    *

    Minimum for graphical: 192MB
    *

    Recommended for graphical: 256MB

    Note that the compatibility/availability of other hardware components (such as video and network cards) may be required for specific installation modes and/or post-installation usage.
    As you can see 32MB won't even run the CLI on a 200Mhz machine. And I can tell you from the experience of many others the usability of the GUI on a 400Mhz machine with 256MB is very poor at best. ie. unusable.
    Last edited by noppid; Fri 26 Mar '04, 7:15am.

    Leave a comment:


  • Faruk
    replied
    Debian. Debian. Debian.

    Woody distro is virtually impossible to crash.

    Anyhoo, that's my input. Debian rocks high and low, as far as I'm concerned, and blows the others away in most things.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Gronlund
    replied
    I think he means RH 9 or even RH8.0, being its only a 233Mhz, 3GB HD

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X