Which is the best Linux for my old desktop PC?

[LetMeKnow]

So... I'd really like to try Linux.
But I'm still on a Celeron 600MHz with 256MB SDRAM... with integrated graphics.
So is Knoppix the right one for me?
Or Damn Small Linux? Or how about Puppy Linux?
Or what, I really mean asking!

Regards.

[LetMeKnow]

Or maybe Ubuntu for desktop PCs?...

[excuzzzeme]

I wouldn't go with Ububtu although easy to use, the gnome desklet needs too much ram. Puppy and DSL run in ram and are good for small projects. I have Puppy on 2 of my flashdrives! Puppy and DSL only 50MB and uses memory lightly. 128 is plenty.

I have found a KDE-based is better for small memory and older computers. So Puppy, DSL, or open Suse are good choices. I run all three on a AMD 950/512. All threee run great. I also run Suse in VM and have had good luck with it.

[samwichse]

Kubuntu, or Xubuntu are good.

KDE's your friend, just be sure to turn off the whiz-bang stuff (konqueror preloading, file previews, indexing, subpixel hinting, animations of any kind).

I run Fedora 7 with KDE 3.5.7 on a 400 mhz Celeron (192 MB of RAM). It's not fast, but it's not extremely slow either.

Sam

[LetMeKnow]

Honestly, I love OpenSUSE more than the others,
Thanks for the tip that I should find one based on KDE!

I don't really understand these:

1) Is it true that booting right from a live-CD/DVD means the processor won't start whatever OS currently installed on my HDD? Can I access, for instance, my "My Documents" then? I'm talking about reading/writing/appending data from/to the HDD.

2) If I run the CD/DVD while the OS (mine is Windows 2000 on a NTFS-formatted HDD) is running, then I'm working with 2 different OSes at a time? How is that possible?

3) What if it's NOT a live-CD/DVD? Must I do clean uninstallation of Win. 2000, which also means full reformat of the HDD?

Anyway Sam, Fedora is based on GNOME, maybe that's why it performs so-so?

Thanks!

[excuzzzeme]

Honestly, I love OpenSUSE more than the others,
Thanks for the tip that I should find one based on KDE!

I don't really understand these:

1) Is it true that booting right from a live-CD/DVD means the processor won't start whatever OS currently installed on my HDD? Can I access, for instance, my "My Documents" then? I'm talking about reading/writing/appending data from/to the HDD.

2) If I run the CD/DVD while the OS (mine is Windows 2000 on a NTFS-formatted HDD) is running, then I'm working with 2 different OSes at a time? How is that possible?

3) What if it's NOT a live-CD/DVD? Must I do clean uninstallation of Win. 2000, which also means full reformat of the HDD?

Anyway Sam, Fedora is based on GNOME, maybe that's why it performs so-so?

Thanks!

If you use a live CD that means everything is done from the CD. The CD boot pre-empts whatever is on the harddrive as it doen'st use one.

The only way to use Linux (or some other OS) while in windows is to use a Virtual Machine. Using VM, you can bounce back and forth between OS's. (Not recommended for machines with less than 512MMB of ram).

If you decide to install any Linux on the HDD you don't need to unninstall as Linux will partion the HDD. You will lose all info stored on it.

It would be better to have a second HDD to install Linux on and do a dual boot as an alternative. Under "dual boot", right after post you will get a screen to select which OS you want to boot. You can access Windows programs and files but only if you install "Wine", (a Windows emulator) in your Linux OS. I recommed a HDD of 6GB or larger as the OS is about 2GB, (except in case of LiveCD).

Hope this helps.

[LetMeKnow]

OK thanks!
Will try OpenSUSE sooner, and let you know.

[samwichse]

http://www.pendrivelinux.com/2007/03...-ubuntu-linux/

If you want to run side-by-side, qemu is pretty svelte. However, it will be a slower experience.

Sam

[LetMeKnow]

Thanks for the link Sam!
Really, thanks to both of you, love you guys!

[#43 fan]

Xubuntu is also a good option.
Myself, I have successfully run Linux Mint (Ubuntu clone) on a computer with 256 MB's of RAM. Granted, RDRAM, and half of the RAM was on the vid card, which Linux uses graphically, apparently.

[LetMeKnow]

If it's for i386, then it can work on i686?

[SeanC]

Yes. i386 can run on i686 compatible hardware.

I don't know the differences off hand, I'd have to look them up. When I get home I'll look it up and post if I have time. Now I'm curious, I never bothered looking up the differences between them.

[excuzzzeme]

They are usually labeled as "X86", so normally if you have 386 and above you should be OK.

[LetMeKnow]

Yes I know my system is of the x86, and it says Family 6 Model 8 Stepping 6, so I guess that's where 686 came from... it's just that I came to a Website selling Linux CDs mostly for i386. Afraid if it works not with i686, so asked to reassure myself. Thanks for the confirmation.

Now I'm thinking whether to just buy the CDs or download the ISOs then burn them manually... this isn't just about the huge size... I burned the DSL's ISO then booted it but the graphics performance wasn't good - not all the themes though. Why? Well I thought DSL isn't choosy...

[qx9r7man]

I have an old laptop, currently running windows 98
and I would like to convert it to linux, but I don't know what version would work best on it. It's a Pentium I, don't know the speed, 30mb RAM, 1.25gb HDD, 6x CD-ROM, external floppy drive (swappable w/ CD), no usb, no NIC (PCMCIA 56k modem with port for ethernet adapter, but no adapter). I want to put linux on it so I can learn linux better. (I dual boot my current laptop xp / SuSE 10, but I need it for school, so I can't afford down-time on it if I mess something up; so I don't do much with SuSE ) I have been told that dsl is the way to go, but I think the current version of damn small linux might not be damn small enough for this old beast. (main issue is RAM)
(it was a gift, and served me well, but I know it can run better. I blame spyware and aol (previous owner wasn't computer-savvy))
Thanks in advance.

[qx9r7man]

bump.

[SeanC]

I have an old laptop, currently running windows 98
and I would like to convert it to linux, but I don't know what version would work best on it. It's a Pentium I, don't know the speed, 30mb RAM, 1.25gb HDD, 6x CD-ROM, external floppy drive (swappable w/ CD), no usb, no NIC (PCMCIA 56k modem with port for ethernet adapter, but no adapter). I want to put linux on it so I can learn linux better. (I dual boot my current laptop xp / SuSE 10, but I need it for school, so I can't afford down-time on it if I mess something up; so I don't do much with SuSE ) I have been told that dsl is the way to go, but I think the current version of damn small linux might not be damn small enough for this old beast. (main issue is RAM)
(it was a gift, and served me well, but I know it can run better. I blame spyware and aol (previous owner wasn't computer-savvy))
Thanks in advance.

Based on those specs try DSL or Puppy Linux.

When I looked at DSL before, I remember reading about an option at boot that would load a low memory kernel. Designed for 32MB systems. Although I think 32MB is the bottom limit of those versions.

It's virtually impossible to have a modern Linux distro that supports a lot of hardware fit in 32MB of RAM. You wouldn't install 2000 or XP in that either.

So if Puppy and DSL don't work, look for an older version of a distro that's from the era of Win98. Like an old version of Debian or Redhat. Now I can guarantee you there's no current security updates on those ones so don't connect that system to the Internet after a fresh install but just for learning you shouldn't have to.

[#43 fan]

Perhaps try an older version of DSL? Like one with a 2.4 or earlier Kernel version.
Just to make a heads up, the older versions of Linux weren't user friendly.
Perhaps you could find more RAM?

[SeanC]

DSL 3 ran on the 2.4 kernel and they said it could run on 32MB with a GUI so give that a try I guess.

[qx9r7man]

thanks, I'll look around for one of those.