Problems/Concerns with older versions of Linux?

[voyager529]

Hey CMN Linux people!

First off, props to Tony Kanago for helping me out this far.

I've got a client/friend who has an older computer (450MHz PII, 128MBytes RAM, 40 GByte hard drive Sony Vaio Desktop). She can't upgrade it right now and she spends most of her time in a web browser or Wordpad and was complaining about the machine being a bit slow. So I thought to myself, "Gee, i wonder why that is". My next thought was "I could probably get her up and running on Linux and she'll have no issues with it". I told her that my best idea right now was to ditch Windows entirely. She seemed a bit perplexed, but ultimately alright with the idea.

So, I figured "meh, vanilla Ubuntu install, take about an hour". Well, the 128MBytes of RAM makes using any live disc apart from DSL neigh impossible, so I got the Ubuntu alt installer. No dice. I then tried the Kubuntu alt install. same amount of luck. The machine won't boot from a DVD, oddly enough. Then, I discovered Fedora Core had a disc i could use to install over the internet, and this seemed to work! The only problem was that it was SLOW. I mean, I watched Smallville and Prison Break, ate a late dinner, played a round of Unreal Tournament, and it was still at 30%. I left it up and running and said that I would be back the next day.

I come back, and the system doesn't boot. I found that OpenSUSE had a similar installation disc, which was a bit nicer looking, but also took a while to do anything. I then tried Puppy Linux, which said that it successfully installed, and still no dice. I then told her that I would take her machine home and tackle it when I'm close enough to my bed that driving home isn't a consideration. On the way home, I had an epiphany. I think that the reason that it didn't detect the OS was because I tried installing GRUB into the / directory instead of the MBR. I decided that I would try that when I got home and that Opensuse would be my distro of choice.

A bit further down the road, I had yet another epiphany. The installation of OpenSuse seemed rather...glacial. I realize that downloading the packages and installing them are going to take a while, but I was thinking about software bloat and whether OpenSUSE or Fedora would just be Tux's version of the Windows problem, and if it would really run optimally on such antiquated hardware. To this, I had yet another thought...

a few years ago I had a Linux class, and that Linux class involved a copy of Mandrake Linux (version 9.1, before it got called Mandriva). I still had the textbook discs, and figured that it would be worth a shot. i figured that the computer is from 1998, so a 2003 OS would probably have everything it needed and what it didn't have probably wasn't too useful for her anyway.

The only question that struck my mind was the fact that this is obviously an outdated and unsupported version of Linux. Given the extremely difficult time I've had with this project, I'm half a step away from restoring the Acronis image I made of her machine before I gave it a Linux lobotomy and call it a day. Still, I'd like to get her up and running with a non-Windows system. I think that ultimately it would work best in her favor.

The punch line of this whole story: Is it unwise, unsafe, impractical, or otherwise undesirable to put a five year old build of Linux on this ten year old computer?

Joey

[Lucas]

You sure Ubuntu won't go on it. the CD versions?
That's my distro of choice ATM.

[kbob]

why not look hard at the distros used by some of the netbooks? While I'm not familiar with them directly, the "beefiness" of those machines isn't all that great, some of which have similar memory limitations as what you're dealing with.

DSL seems like a decent place to start, though. It says on it's home page that it can run fully in memory as low as 128 megs...

Another option might be Puppy Linux-

http://www.puppylinux.org/

it claims to run on a 486 with as little as 32 Megs of Ram...YMMV....

gOS, the one on those walmart pc's a while back, requires 256 MB of ram in it's two most current configurations.

[wvpv]

Dude, RAM is cheap. I'd see if there isn't a way to get up to at least 512MB.

I've installed older Ubuntu, RH and Debian distros on some old Dell & Compaq machines (400-500MHz) and it was pretty much a waste of time. It was fun and a challenge. However, unless you're willing to go the non-GUI route, I wouldn't bother.

Reinstalling the stock Windows OS isn't an option? There's no OEM license sticker on the machine? No original install CDs?

And really, do you want to answer the inevitiable "can Linux do ___ this" questions? I'm all for helping people out, but installing Linux on a desktop or notebook is a recipe for a steady stream of support questions.

[Creonus]

Not much to add, actually... nothing to add.

But I just thought that taking an Acronis image of a system that was about to be wiped, chucked, and forever-more inaccessible to this friend was pretty good contingency planning.

[tedanderson]

I was able to successfully install Ubuntu on my older machines onces I figured out that they just needed more memory. It has been my experience that anything less than 256 will prevent the install. But one thing I discovered is that after the install you can downgrade back to 128. So what I did was borrow the 512 out of my "good" computer and used it to run the live CD and do an install on my older machines.

[TMcKellar]

Would a network install be possible? Most network installs are text based so they may go a little smoother. You might give Slax a try too. It is the one of the easiest graphical live cd's to use when it comes to getting it to boot on near anything.

[Pastor Tim]

I run Mandrake on a machine slightly slower than that one, but with 1 meg of RAM. I find it almost unusably slow with any GUI application. Overall I think you will realize more benefit for the user by adding some memory and doing a clean Windows install than you will with Linux. The only time I have found Linux to have a speed advantage is when it is running in non-GUI modes, especially on marginal hardware.

YMMV

Pastor Tim

[waynehoskins]

I can't think of much that hasn't already been said. DSL and Puppy came to mind (and there's a new light cut of Puppy called "Muppy" (Mini Puppy) that might be worth a look too.

No problems doing a stock Ubuntu install on P3-800s, but that's a bit different than a P2-450.

A thought, you might try a "server" install and then adding Xfce to that (or Gnome or KDE). (the Xfce metapackage, I believe, is "xubuntu-desktop")

[voyager529]

Originally Posted by Lucas

You sure Ubuntu won't go on it. the CD versions?
That's my distro of choice ATM.

Mine too. And I kept getting various errors on the installation. I tried 7.10, 8.04, and 8.10, all in text-mode installations.

Originally Posted by kbob

why not look hard at the distros used by some of the netbooks? While I'm not familiar with them directly, the "beefiness" of those machines isn't all that great, some of which have similar memory limitations as what you're dealing with.

DSL seems like a decent place to start, though. It says on it's home page that it can run fully in memory as low as 128 megs...

Another option might be Puppy Linux-

http://www.puppylinux.org/

it claims to run on a 486 with as little as 32 Megs of Ram...YMMV....

gOS, the one on those walmart pc's a while back, requires 256 MB of ram in it's two most current configurations.

The netbooks don't have quad core processors, but they do have a gig of RAM. And at that, they still have processors faster than a P2 450.

I tried Puppy and my error during install is that I didn't write to the MBR. I might try it again doing so, the only thing I would like to see is if it's got one of those GUI apt-get places like Ubuntu does. The machine has a 40 GByte drive in it so adding a few more apps for her won't be a problem storagewise.

Originally Posted by wvpv

Dude, RAM is cheap. I'd see if there isn't a way to get up to at least 512MB.

This thing takes ANCIENT RAM. SD233. I don't really see it on shelves right now and would have to order online if I wanted to go that route. The issue is that it's near pointless to invest money into a machine of that age. I wouldn't be surprised if the machine didn't support 512 anyway because...

Reinstalling the stock Windows OS isn't an option? There's no OEM license sticker on the machine? No original install CDs?

The machine has a Windows ME sticker. I'll take my chances with Linux. Especially because Sony machines have some pretty bizarre hardware which means impossible-to-find drivers.

And really, do you want to answer the inevitiable "can Linux do ___ this" questions? I'm all for helping people out, but installing Linux on a desktop or notebook is a recipe for a steady stream of support questions.

"This is Firefox." "This is AbiWord." "Yes you can print." "No, your webcam won't work." "No, you need neither a virus scanner nor a spyware scanner." Behold, the extent of the questions I will get, which is why she's getting Linux.

Originally Posted by tedanderson

I was able to successfully install Ubuntu on my older machines onces I figured out that they just needed more memory. It has been my experience that anything less than 256 will prevent the install. But one thing I discovered is that after the install you can downgrade back to 128. So what I did was borrow the 512 out of my "good" computer and used it to run the live CD and do an install on my older machines.

See above about RAM.

Originally Posted by Creonus

Not much to add, actually... nothing to add.

But I just thought that taking an Acronis image of a system that was about to be wiped, chucked, and forever-more inaccessible to this friend was pretty good contingency planning.

Thanks, I figured that it would come in handy, especially with dealing with the hardware I was.

Originally Posted by waynehoskins

I can't think of much that hasn't already been said. DSL and Puppy came to mind (and there's a new light cut of Puppy called "Muppy" (Mini Puppy) that might be worth a look too.....

A thought, you might try a "server" install and then adding Xfce to that (or Gnome or KDE). (the Xfce metapackage, I believe, is "xubuntu-desktop")

Originally Posted by TMcKellar

Would a network install be possible? Most network installs are text based so they may go a little smoother.

When I finished installing Mandrake, I found out that it was a very minimalist system. It booted fine (and fairly snappily at that), but it didn't have much on it. No firefox, no Abiword, no Openoffice, and no apt-get repo. Why it took two CDs to install is beyond me. Right now the machine has OpenSuse on it, which I was able to do because of a network install. I got the network install disc and the full disc, extracted the full disc's contents to a folder on my computer, made an FTP login for it, and the installation went just fine (except for a few timeouts on the FTP connection). It works, but it is stil rather behemoth-like on the dated hardware, so it doesn't really solve any issues, it just shifts them onto a green desktop. I think that Puppy linux is getting another chance.

Joey