Ive got a 200mhz pII 64mb ram laptop that i want to play around with, so i was looking for some recommendations for some Linux distros that would run on such a low spec machine. I might try to run win2k or just junk it, but it would be nice to know what kind of options i have.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-19 8:25
I tried Windows2K on a P3-450MHz with 512MBytes of RAM and it was really too slow. Windows98 might work but, by experience, it was not really stable. You could try Knoppix http://www.knoppix.org f irst because you can play with it without any installation.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-19 10:52
Knoppix will freak out and not run with only 64 megs of ram. I would recommend putting NetBSD on there, along with a light-weight window manager (either windowmaker, icewm or -best yet- xfce).
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-19 15:36
Windows 2000 will huff and puff and thrash in only 64MB of RAM. Windows 95 would work, but it's really flaky and unstable, and it's hard to find the patch for USB functionality (if USB is a requirement of yours).
Try Windows NT 4.
Or Tiny Linux: ttp://tiny.seul.org/
Or Damn Small Linux: ttp://www.damnsmalllinux.org/
An older Linux distro would also work, like Red Hat 5.2.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-19 18:38
>>3
It will run, but you won't be able to use kde.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-19 22:46
>>2
That's strange. In 2001 I used to develop software professionally on a 400Mhz system with 256MB ram, using 2k. No, it was not slow in the least, other than the obligatory long boot time.
If you want a fast Windows OS for a 64MB machine, I recommend Win98 with the IE components removed and the explorer replaced by Win95a's. Plain 98 is dog slow, almost entirely thanks to that infernal default shell.
If you go the *nix route, and don't wisely use NetBSD, then linux 2.2 with X and something like WindowMaker, OpenBox, or similar will work. Do not install KDE or Gnome. Further, you'll want to stay away from GTK2 apps and most QT ones. GTK1 is about your only option outside of things like Athena and the ilk. Perhaps replace Bash with something smaller, like Ash.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-22 8:35
>>6
Windows 2000 is a thousand times more stable than Windows 98. If you don't mind the longer boot time, use it and don't turn off your computer.
The last time I tried Windows 98, I had some weird explorer.exe bug (funny without an internet connection) that would crash my windows every minute.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-22 10:37
Get NT 4, it's great, and better than windows 95, imo.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-22 14:21
try windows 98 without ie components and use liteshell as shell instead of explorer.exe, really cool slim thingie, and fun to work with. i used that combination on my p1 266 notebook with 64 mb ram, worked perfectly for surfing the web, office, etc...
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-22 16:28
Okay, thanks for all the suggestions. Right now im leaning toward win2k with liteshell (unless this setup make no sense for some reason). With linux, I am basicially considering Ubuntu since I have very little linux experience and need a very easy to use distro with a good gui and whatnot. I know that it will run like shit on my current setup, but if i were to upgrade the ram to 256mb, would i be able to run Gnome decently, or would the processor be holding me back?
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-22 16:58
>>7
Bad setup then. In all the years I ran 98 the system only crashed about once a month. Of course, I'd turn the machine off every night...
>>10
Stay away from Gnome. Stay away from KDE. Stay away from GTK2 apps if you can, and the modern Qt ones as well. Stick to things like GTK1, and minimize additional libraries (ie, pick either using qt or gtk apps, and stick only to those). You're not missing much, at least on the Gnome and KDE front.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-23 13:40
i have heard that ubuntu is easy. a good lightweight desktop manager for linux is xfce. it takes up very little processing power or memory.
gnome and kde are both very resource intensive, i remember kde ran quite slowly on my old p3 800mhz laptop with 192mb of ram.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-02-24 8:54
>>12
The newer versions of KDE run a lot better. But for the setup described in >>1
I'd agree with your recommendation of XFCE4 running on Ubuntu. KDE is just way to big to be running in 64mb.
You might want to consider Yoper; I haven't used it but I hear it provides binaries for every single kernel module so you can get the benefits of a custom kernel without having to recompile, you just use the package manager.
>>10
If you want to use the default Ubuntu install with Gnome, your processor shouldn't be too much of a problem provided you don't have lots of eyecandy enabled. You will almost certainly want more RAM though.
Name:
nobody!!sQt4t5vh39PoAtp2008-05-10 0:34
what about dos? stable, fast and lets you do what you want to;-)
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-10 8:58
hi namefag
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-10 13:14
Damn Small Linux or Puppy Linux might be worth a try.
TomsRtBt is perhaps a bit too small.
MS do a cut down OS for old machines, you should be able to get a rapidshit or torrent of it form somewhere.
Computer noob here. GOt a problem. Built my computer back in 2004. Ran great, until recently, it has been making a peculiar sound, not unlike a much quieter version of a lawn-mower engine that won't turn over...
Any suggestions? Ideas? Fixes?
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-11 2:59
>>18
Whatever you do dont buy a new computer, just get a new mobo video card sound card dvd drive hard drive and RAM chips and CPU
>>22
Cleaned the spark plugs but it's still pinking.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-11 10:36
Retard the timing
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-22 6:42
You can install Debian or even Ubuntu in a "server" mode, and use text terminal. If you want GUI, you probably will be able to run Fluxbox, Window Maker or even Xfce, however GNOME and KDE would be way too slow.
With enough swap space you should be able to run Firefox, but expect it to be slow.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 0:53
Time the retard
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 11:59
Xubuntu, Fluxubuntu or DSL should all work ok on it. Just don't expect it to do much quickly.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 18:33
I have Xubuntu running on an old Win98 laptop, runs surprisingly fast.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-28 16:10
Damn small is your best bet. It has all the cool apps and a very small reqs.
Try the live disc of it first. You'll be glad you did.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-30 3:59
>>2
I ran XP on a 300 Mhz p2 with 256 MB of ram. wtf are you talking about. It was slow, yes, but usable.
But yeah, some lightweight variety of linux is the way to go for the OP.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-30 22:32
Linux sucks sure there's an ebuild for linux but it just get dropped to /opt, it's statically linked, and it's CLOSED SOURCE, which means that it is a BINARY package
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-03 20:37
OP is from 2005, guys.
>>30
XP requires lots of ram. With 64mb it is NOT usable.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-03 21:23
>>32
Sure it is. You just have to be frugal with the programs you wish to run.
>>35
Part fail for dates, part double plus success for links to MS OS for legacy machines.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-04 23:00
recompile your kernel
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-06 13:59
You all fail. Here is a well educated answer to your question:
Linux would be the most logical option.. But ofcourse you might need your Windows functionality.. That's where Windows FLP steps in for the win.. Its XP that runs on very old computers.. Torrent it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 2:46
Damn Small Linux does very well. Uses Linux's 2.4 kernel (older comps tend to like that better), fits in 100MB on a CD or USB, uses the Fluxbox GUI so it's very memory-efficient but still has a nice and usable interface. Comes with a bunch of very efficient little apps, even a mini web browser (Dillo) and text AIM client. And you can add more apps with the MyDSL package system and even enable apt so you can add Debian stuff. I ran it on a 92MB RAM, 333MHz Pentium II for quite some time, a ThinkPad 600E. And since it uses Knoppix' hardware detection routines it'll probably set up all your shit for you right from the start.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-11 15:12
Damn Small for sure, puppy has better bundled apps imo, but the requirements are slightly higher. you could always drop a larger hard drive in(im assuming its like 1gb) and install a full distro with a lightweight windows manager(twm is awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwrite)