Most suitable Linux Distribution

Kane2000 · 11-25-2006, 08:30 PM

Hi,

I have been a long time user of Windows and want to try out Linux to see what the hype's about. I've got an old computer (Pentium 2, 128MB RAM and a 4MB Video card). And the hard drive's only 10GB.

I currently have Windows 2000 installed on the hard drive. I want to keep this and partition the hard drive so I can install Linux along with Windows 2000.

Can people please make some reccomendations on which Linux distribution would be the best. I prefer a stable operating system with good compatibality with software and especially hardware(almost all hardware in the computer's at least 5 years old).

If you post a recommendation could you please let me know the goods and the bads about the distribution?

Thanks to anyone who helps.

**Fox** · 11-25-2006, 08:42 PM

Redhat 9 is a decent distribution. You'll spend less time installing it and more time working with it than a lot of other distros.

Plus, it fits well on a 10gb drive with room to spare for experimentation.

Kane2000 · 11-25-2006, 09:33 PM

Thanks heaps Fox. Is it possible to get a Live CD for that?

Sgt_Grim_Reaper · 11-25-2006, 09:38 PM

Not sure about a liveCD for Red Hat 9.0... that I'm aware of. But don't fret; you are in luck, because there are plenty of distros based on Red Hat Linux with and without Live CD. Knoppix is one.

http://lwn.net/Articles/46668/

Sgt_Grim_Reaper · 11-25-2006, 09:42 PM

Also, DSL (Damn Small Linux) is great for not taking up much space.

Kane2000 · 11-26-2006, 12:09 AM

Thanks guys for those recommendations. While reading about Knoppix on the net a lot of reviews said that it had trouble recognissing hardware made before 1998. My computer was made in about 1996.

At the moment Red Hat 9 and DSL looks like the best options. If someone could provide me with more information about DSL, it would be very helpful, because it sounds pretty good.

And somebody at another forum told me Xubunutu is also a good distribution. Although it has large requirements, I can run Windows 2000 without a hitch, so should I be able to run Xubunutu 6.10?

**K-B** · 11-26-2006, 04:59 AM

Hi Kane, how much space is Windows 2000 taking up on the hard drive?
Anyways, DSL is good for the machine, but it's known to not be as user-friendly, for new Linux users.
A distro that comes to mind is SimplyMEPIS. It's minimum requirements are 128mb RAM and 2.5 gig disk space, Pentium processor.
But Xubuntu is probably your best option. It runs the light, sleek Xfce GUI (Graphical User Interface) instead of the "heavier" KDE and GNOME found on most other distros. Min. requirements are 128mb of RAM for running the Live/Install CD, 1.5 gig disk space. Once installed, xubuntu can actually run on 64mb of RAM. The best thing about xubuntu is, that it is user-friendly for the most part. Like Ubuntu.

**Bartender** · 11-26-2006, 09:21 AM

I second kbalona, and would add that you should download the "alternate install" version of Xubuntu, not the LiveCD. The LiveCD starts running into problems with less than 256 of RAM. The alternate install CD doesn't need as much RAM to complete the installation. I get the impression there's a lot of confusion regarding the alternate install CD. It's easy to go thru, just text-based instead of the graphics you get with the LiveCD. And of course it doesn't give you the option of trying out the operating system first, but with 128 of RAM you probly don't have that option anyway.
When you're done there's no difference between the finished products. Xubuntu will be Xubuntu whether you got there via the LiveCD or the alternate install CD.

**K-B** · 11-26-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartender

I second kbalona, and would add that you should download the "alternate install" version of Xubuntu, not the LiveCD. The LiveCD starts running into problems with less than 256 of RAM. The alternate install CD doesn't need as much RAM to complete the installation. I get the impression there's a lot of confusion regarding the alternate install CD. It's easy to go thru, just text-based instead of the graphics you get with the LiveCD. And of course it doesn't give you the option of trying out the operating system first, but with 128 of RAM you probly don't have that option anyway.
When you're done there's no difference between the finished products. Xubuntu will be Xubuntu whether you got there via the LiveCD or the alternate install CD.

Excellent info, Bartender. The "alternate install" only requires 64mb of RAM for the installation.

**Fox** · 11-26-2006, 11:56 AM

I really wouldn't recommend a LiveCD for a first-time linux experience either. Much of linux is learned through the process of installation and configuration. A first time linux user won't learn much by just popping in a Knoppix disk (which is based off of Debian, btw, not RedHat).

My advice: either set up a virtual PC with a real distribution on it, or just bite the bullet and set up dual-booting with w2k and the linux flavor you finally decide on. You'll thank yourself when you start understanding why things are working, and not just knowing that they work.

**TheMatt** · 11-26-2006, 03:22 PM

The Ubuntu distros are more user friendly, and it is easier to set up the dual boot. I have never personally used XFCE, but it sounds like it is light. I would go with that or maybe SUSE or Mandrake, as those run well on older systems also. Just remember, no matter which distro you use, to use the 386 kernel, as that it optimized for older systems.

**Cellus** · 11-26-2006, 06:12 PM

You can also use something like Damn Small Linux (DSL) which is based on Knoppix. It has very low system requirements and has a very small resource footprint. It works on old hardware as well.

http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

If the above suggestions do not work, this one should. If it doesn't work, you may need to get the syslinux version (greater compatibility over older hardware than isolinux).

Kane2000 · 11-27-2006, 04:54 AM

Is Ubuntu 10 the same as Xubuntu 10? If not which one should I donwload?

And I recently saw most people think that openSUSE is the best for beginners. Do you guys think it would be fit for my hardware? Anyone here use it? What are its features?

**K-B** · 11-27-2006, 08:16 AM

6.10 is the latest release of Ubuntu and Xubuntu. Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, with a different GUI. So they have similar qualities. But xubuntu is better for slow systems. OpenSUSE is a good distro. It looks like your system meets the minimum requirements, but it might run slowly.

**Bartender** · 11-28-2006, 07:39 AM

Yeah, Kane, 6.06 is the "Dapper" release, called LTS for Long Term Support. The 6.06 version is available as Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, & Edubuntu. 6.10 is called "Edgy" and is not Long Term Support. Edgy is available as Ub, Kub, Xub, Edu. It will be replaced with Feisty Fawn in a few months.

I've tried 6.06, 6.10, Xub, Kub, and Ubuntu. I like Xubuntu. Struggling for the correct term - don't want to use "stripped" or "bare-bones" or some other term that hints at an inferior experience. It does not offer certain conveniences that we take for granted, such as the ability to easily drag-and-drop icons to the desktop. I also noticed the super-easy dial-up modem setup in 6.06 Ubuntu was gone. But who's on dial-up any more anyway? Well, besides me anyway...

The default desktop is pleasant and if you have access to broadband you can add pretty much whatever you want. Automatix2 works with Xubuntu. But I think it's important to remember that Xubuntu is designed to be lightweight. It doesn't include the entire OpenOffice suite. You can add OO, but it's kinda like hitching a big old U-Haul trailer onto your Porsche, if you know what I mean. You'll get there but it'll feel slow.

For you, I'd suggest the Xubuntu 6.06 Alternate Install CD. 6.10 would probly run just fine, but I don't think there's any compelling reason to use it instead of 6.06.

Raven · 11-28-2006, 09:55 AM

Kubuntu all the way :)

fredobrien · 11-28-2006, 11:30 AM

Kubuntu, xubuntu,ubuntu & ATI video cards have problems. If you have ati would not try. Nvidia will work. Mandriva 2006 is nice & friendly & easier for frist time user.Works with most hardware & will work with modems. I hear 2007 is better. Have not tried. Fred

Kane2000 · 11-29-2006, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartender

But I think it's important to remember that Xubuntu is designed to be lightweight. It doesn't include the entire OpenOffice suite. You can add OO, but it's kinda like hitching a big old U-Haul trailer onto your Porsche, if you know what I mean. You'll get there but it'll feel slow.

I would be very thankful if you could tone down on the slang/jargon. So are you saying that Open Office is already pert of Xubuntu, but only part of it and if I want the full version it's going to slow down the OS?

**K-B** · 11-29-2006, 03:50 AM

Right. You can easily install it through the Synaptic Package Manager (think Add/Remove Software). However it may slow down your system some, but I'm guessing it would still run OK.

**Bartender** · 11-29-2006, 07:04 AM

I didn't mean to confuse you with jargon. Just trying to create a visual image.

Xubuntu comes with abiword, a nice word processor that would work just fine for most of us. However, I don't think abiword can change the format of your document to Word 97. OpenOffice can, and it's an awfully nice feature to have when e-mailing documents to friends who use that other OS.
If you have broadband, you can add the OpenOffice suite via Synaptic when you're done installing Xubuntu. kbalona, please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the only time you'll see a performance hit is when you actually use OpenOffice. Installing OO isn't going to slow the PC down all the time, just when you use it. The rest of the time your Porsch - er - PC will run just fine.

Same with other programs. For example, Google Picasa is an image management program with all kinds of features, but it's big and slow. You'd be better off using F-Spot (available in Synaptic after you enable the extra repositories) for photo management and GIMP for image manipulation.

I just looked back to your first message. 10GB is going to get awful tight, especially if you start adding programs like OO to your Linux OS. Any chance of scrounging up a second drive for your Linux install?

Hey, while we're on this subject of OO responsiveness, here's a link for speeding up OO. If you've got lots of RAM you can boost those settings higher. I've got 650+ and pushed the first setting to 120 MB or so.

11-25-2006, 08:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
Kane2000 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 49 OS: XP	Most suitable Linux Distribution Hi, I have been a long time user of Windows and want to try out Linux to see what the hype's about. I've got an old computer (Pentium 2, 128MB RAM and a 4MB Video card). And the hard drive's only 10GB. I currently have Windows 2000 installed on the hard drive. I want to keep this and partition the hard drive so I can install Linux along with Windows 2000. Can people please make some reccomendations on which Linux distribution would be the best. I prefer a stable operating system with good compatibality with software and especially hardware(almost all hardware in the computer's at least 5 years old). If you post a recommendation could you please let me know the goods and the bads about the distribution? Thanks to anyone who helps.

11-25-2006, 08:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
Fox TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NJ Posts: 7,752 OS: XP Pro, CentOS My System	Redhat 9 is a decent distribution. You'll spend less time installing it and more time working with it than a lot of other distros. Plus, it fits well on a 10gb drive with room to spare for experimentation. __________________ Antec Neo Power 500W, ABIT IP35-E, Intel E2180@2.66Ghz, Corsair XMS2 2x1GB DDR2-800, PNY 8800GT, 320GB Seagate * lazy college student alert *- If I've inadvertently ignored a thread, please Let me know about it Have I helped you solve your problem? Donate to Techsupportforums Klart Skepp!

11-25-2006, 09:38 PM	#4 (permalink)
Sgt_Grim_Reaper Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: New Mexico Posts: 396 OS: XP Pro SP3 My System	Not sure about a liveCD for Red Hat 9.0... that I'm aware of. But don't fret; you are in luck, because there are plenty of distros based on Red Hat Linux with and without Live CD. Knoppix is one. http://lwn.net/Articles/46668/ __________________ Allow Color BBCode No, Allow Size BBCode No, Allow [IMG] Code No, Can Upload Images for Signature No, Can Upload Animated GIF for Signature No, Allow Smilies No, Can Have Fun No Last edited by Sgt_Grim_Reaper; 11-25-2006 at 09:39 PM.

11-25-2006, 09:42 PM	#5 (permalink)
Sgt_Grim_Reaper Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: New Mexico Posts: 396 OS: XP Pro SP3 My System	Also, DSL (Damn Small Linux) is great for not taking up much space. __________________ Allow Color BBCode No, Allow Size BBCode No, Allow [IMG] Code No, Can Upload Images for Signature No, Can Upload Animated GIF for Signature No, Allow Smilies No, Can Have Fun No

11-26-2006, 12:09 AM	#6 (permalink)
Kane2000 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 49 OS: XP	Thanks guys for those recommendations. While reading about Knoppix on the net a lot of reviews said that it had trouble recognissing hardware made before 1998. My computer was made in about 1996. At the moment Red Hat 9 and DSL looks like the best options. If someone could provide me with more information about DSL, it would be very helpful, because it sounds pretty good. And somebody at another forum told me Xubunutu is also a good distribution. Although it has large requirements, I can run Windows 2000 without a hitch, so should I be able to run Xubunutu 6.10? Last edited by Kane2000; 11-26-2006 at 12:33 AM. Reason: Don't want to double post.

11-25-2006, 09:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
Kane2000 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 49 OS: XP	Thanks heaps Fox. Is it possible to get a Live CD for that?

11-26-2006, 04:59 AM	#7 (permalink)
K-B Mod. Linux, Wrench Turner Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NY Posts: 2,881 OS: Vista, Ubuntu My System	Hi Kane, how much space is Windows 2000 taking up on the hard drive? Anyways, DSL is good for the machine, but it's known to not be as user-friendly, for new Linux users. A distro that comes to mind is SimplyMEPIS. It's minimum requirements are 128mb RAM and 2.5 gig disk space, Pentium processor. But Xubuntu is probably your best option. It runs the light, sleek Xfce GUI (Graphical User Interface) instead of the "heavier" KDE and GNOME found on most other distros. Min. requirements are 128mb of RAM for running the Live/Install CD, 1.5 gig disk space. Once installed, xubuntu can actually run on 64mb of RAM. The best thing about xubuntu is, that it is user-friendly for the most part. Like Ubuntu. __________________

11-26-2006, 09:21 AM	#8 (permalink)
Bartender Mentally divergent Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Chehalis, WA, USA Posts: 1,285 OS: W2K, Ubuntu 8.04	I second kbalona, and would add that you should download the "alternate install" version of Xubuntu, not the LiveCD. The LiveCD starts running into problems with less than 256 of RAM. The alternate install CD doesn't need as much RAM to complete the installation. I get the impression there's a lot of confusion regarding the alternate install CD. It's easy to go thru, just text-based instead of the graphics you get with the LiveCD. And of course it doesn't give you the option of trying out the operating system first, but with 128 of RAM you probly don't have that option anyway. When you're done there's no difference between the finished products. Xubuntu will be Xubuntu whether you got there via the LiveCD or the alternate install CD.

11-26-2006, 11:56 AM	#10 (permalink)
Fox TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NJ Posts: 7,752 OS: XP Pro, CentOS My System	I really wouldn't recommend a LiveCD for a first-time linux experience either. Much of linux is learned through the process of installation and configuration. A first time linux user won't learn much by just popping in a Knoppix disk (which is based off of Debian, btw, not RedHat). My advice: either set up a virtual PC with a real distribution on it, or just bite the bullet and set up dual-booting with w2k and the linux flavor you finally decide on. You'll thank yourself when you start understanding why things are working, and not just knowing that they work. __________________ Antec Neo Power 500W, ABIT IP35-E, Intel E2180@2.66Ghz, Corsair XMS2 2x1GB DDR2-800, PNY 8800GT, 320GB Seagate * lazy college student alert *- If I've inadvertently ignored a thread, please Let me know about it Have I helped you solve your problem? Donate to Techsupportforums Klart Skepp!

11-26-2006, 03:22 PM	#11 (permalink)
TheMatt TSF Enthusiast Join Date: May 2006 Location: Boston Posts: 13,701 OS: Win 3.1, 98, NT 4.0, XP Debian 4.0, Kubuntu 6.06 My System Blog Entries: 3	The Ubuntu distros are more user friendly, and it is easier to set up the dual boot. I have never personally used XFCE, but it sounds like it is light. I would go with that or maybe SUSE or Mandrake, as those run well on older systems also. Just remember, no matter which distro you use, to use the 386 kernel, as that it optimized for older systems. __________________ - Matt M - KB1OSC - Folding@Home 85015 [url="http://www.techsupportforum.com/hardware-support/"] If TSF has helped you, please consider donating. If I have stopped responding to a thread, feel free to send me a PM with a link to the thread. It is advisable to subscribe to threads so you will receive updates when replies are posted. You can subscribe to threads from the "Thread Tools" Menu. »Memtest86 »Prime95 »UBCD »SpeedFan »NHC Personal »Everest »Sandra »PC Wizard »RivaTuner »ATi Tool Click here for Useful Articles and Guides

11-26-2006, 06:12 PM	#12 (permalink)
Cellus Moderator Networking Team Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 2,664 OS: Windows Vista Business SP1, Windows XP Professional SP3 My System	You can also use something like Damn Small Linux (DSL) which is based on Knoppix. It has very low system requirements and has a very small resource footprint. It works on old hardware as well. http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/ If the above suggestions do not work, this one should. If it doesn't work, you may need to get the syslinux version (greater compatibility over older hardware than isolinux). __________________ TSF Networking Team Virus/Trojan/Spyware Removal Help Donate!

11-27-2006, 04:54 AM	#13 (permalink)
Kane2000 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 49 OS: XP	Is Ubuntu 10 the same as Xubuntu 10? If not which one should I donwload? And I recently saw most people think that openSUSE is the best for beginners. Do you guys think it would be fit for my hardware? Anyone here use it? What are its features? Last edited by Kane2000; 11-27-2006 at 05:05 AM.

11-27-2006, 08:16 AM	#14 (permalink)
K-B Mod. Linux, Wrench Turner Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NY Posts: 2,881 OS: Vista, Ubuntu My System	6.10 is the latest release of Ubuntu and Xubuntu. Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, with a different GUI. So they have similar qualities. But xubuntu is better for slow systems. OpenSUSE is a good distro. It looks like your system meets the minimum requirements, but it might run slowly. __________________

11-28-2006, 07:39 AM	#15 (permalink)
Bartender Mentally divergent Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Chehalis, WA, USA Posts: 1,285 OS: W2K, Ubuntu 8.04	Yeah, Kane, 6.06 is the "Dapper" release, called LTS for Long Term Support. The 6.06 version is available as Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, & Edubuntu. 6.10 is called "Edgy" and is not Long Term Support. Edgy is available as Ub, Kub, Xub, Edu. It will be replaced with Feisty Fawn in a few months. I've tried 6.06, 6.10, Xub, Kub, and Ubuntu. I like Xubuntu. Struggling for the correct term - don't want to use "stripped" or "bare-bones" or some other term that hints at an inferior experience. It does not offer certain conveniences that we take for granted, such as the ability to easily drag-and-drop icons to the desktop. I also noticed the super-easy dial-up modem setup in 6.06 Ubuntu was gone. But who's on dial-up any more anyway? Well, besides me anyway... The default desktop is pleasant and if you have access to broadband you can add pretty much whatever you want. Automatix2 works with Xubuntu. But I think it's important to remember that Xubuntu is designed to be lightweight. It doesn't include the entire OpenOffice suite. You can add OO, but it's kinda like hitching a big old U-Haul trailer onto your Porsche, if you know what I mean. You'll get there but it'll feel slow. For you, I'd suggest the Xubuntu 6.06 Alternate Install CD. 6.10 would probly run just fine, but I don't think there's any compelling reason to use it instead of 6.06.

11-28-2006, 09:55 AM	#16 (permalink)
Raven Registered User Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 88 OS: WinXP Pro, Win 98SE, Kubuntu (6.06)	Kubuntu all the way :)

11-28-2006, 11:30 AM	#17 (permalink)
fredobrien Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Clarks Hill, Indiana Posts: 216 OS: XP pro, PCLINUXOS Ubuntu	Kubuntu, xubuntu,ubuntu & ATI video cards have problems. If you have ati would not try. Nvidia will work. Mandriva 2006 is nice & friendly & easier for frist time user.Works with most hardware & will work with modems. I hear 2007 is better. Have not tried. Fred

11-29-2006, 03:50 AM	#19 (permalink)
K-B Mod. Linux, Wrench Turner Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NY Posts: 2,881 OS: Vista, Ubuntu My System	Right. You can easily install it through the Synaptic Package Manager (think Add/Remove Software). However it may slow down your system some, but I'm guessing it would still run OK. __________________

11-29-2006, 07:04 AM	#20 (permalink)
Bartender Mentally divergent Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Chehalis, WA, USA Posts: 1,285 OS: W2K, Ubuntu 8.04	I didn't mean to confuse you with jargon. Just trying to create a visual image. Xubuntu comes with abiword, a nice word processor that would work just fine for most of us. However, I don't think abiword can change the format of your document to Word 97. OpenOffice can, and it's an awfully nice feature to have when e-mailing documents to friends who use that other OS. If you have broadband, you can add the OpenOffice suite via Synaptic when you're done installing Xubuntu. kbalona, please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the only time you'll see a performance hit is when you actually use OpenOffice. Installing OO isn't going to slow the PC down all the time, just when you use it. The rest of the time your Porsch - er - PC will run just fine. Same with other programs. For example, Google Picasa is an image management program with all kinds of features, but it's big and slow. You'd be better off using F-Spot (available in Synaptic after you enable the extra repositories) for photo management and GIMP for image manipulation. I just looked back to your first message. 10GB is going to get awful tight, especially if you start adding programs like OO to your Linux OS. Any chance of scrounging up a second drive for your Linux install? Hey, while we're on this subject of OO responsiveness, here's a link for speeding up OO. If you've got lots of RAM you can boost those settings higher. I've got 650+ and pushed the first setting to 120 MB or so. Last edited by Bartender; 11-29-2006 at 07:08 AM.