Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
Linux distros for older hardware
By Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
on
February 24, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Microsoft lately has been challenging Linux's suitability for older hardware, so it seems like a good time to look at Linux distributions that can run on older machines. I took six distributions for a test run on an old machine, and also tried software that turns old hardware into a thin client. The bottom line: Linux is still quite suitable for older hardware. It might not turn your aging PC into a powerhouse, but it will extend its lifespan considerably.
For these tests, I dug out Igor, an old PC that had been collecting dust in my closet. Igor is a Pentium II 233MHz machine with 64MB of RAM, an 8x CD-ROM drive, a 3GB hard drive, and an integrated ATI 3D Rage Pro video card with 4MB of video RAM. You can run Linux on older and slower machines, but this is the most under-powered machine I had available.
Next, I selected a handful of lightweight Linux distributions that looked promising, and started downloading. The distributions ranged from popular "mainstream" distros such as Slackware and Debian to distros that are specifically developed for lightweight machines, such as Damn Small Linux (DSL). I apologize in advance if your favorite lightweight distro is not represented here.
Slackware Linux
I started the tests off with Slackware Linux 10.2. Though Slackware isn't specifically geared to lightweight machines, it's well-suited for older hardware. Slackware's installer had no problem with the Pentium II machine. It took about an hour to install a set of packages on the test machine. As a rule, when I install Slackware, I often go for the full install, but with only 3GB to work with, I was a bit more careful. I wound up with about 800MB free, though careful selection of package sets could trim that down even further.
Slackware includes a good selection of lightweight window managers, including Xfce, Fluxbox, and FVWM. On Slackware, I spent most of my time in Fluxbox, which proved to be a very usable desktop, even with limited resources.
Slackware comes with the typical assortment of desktop software, some of which ran well on the old machine, while some ran slowly. In many cases, applications would take forever (okay, a minute or so) to start up, but then run fairly well afterwards. Firefox, for example, takes far longer to start on this machine than I'd like, though it runs okay once it's up.
ZipSlack is another Slackware-based distribution for older hardware, and newer hardware as well if the machine has a FAT partition. It's designed to run out of a directory on a FAT partition, which makes it an easy distro to start with if you've got an old machine that still runs Windows 95 or Windows 98.
The entire ZipSlack distro should fit within 100MB of disk space. I recommend this one only for users with an older Windows machine who want to test-drive Linux. Using Linux on a FAT partition isn't optimal and comes with some performance drawbacks, but it's worth trying just to get a feel for Linux.
Overall, Slackware makes a pretty good distro for lightweight machines. Its hardware requirements are fairly modest (486 or better CPU, 32MB of RAM minimum, 500MB of free disk space), and the package selection is good for lightweight machines. Although Slackware isn't specifically tailored for lightweight machines, it's obvious from Slackware's modest system requirements that developer Patrick Volkerding is still looking to make Slackware usable on older machines.
Debian Linux
Debian Linux is also suitable for machines with modest amounts of memory, though it's not the first distro I'd recommend for users who are unfamiliar with Linux. I tested Debian's Sarge release.
Debian's text-mode installer, like Slackware's, is right at home on older hardware. I selected the Desktop package collection, which provided X and a desktop environment. I used the netinstall image, and it took quite a while for all the packages to download and unpack on Igor. If you're installing Debian in this fashion on older hardware, I suggest going out for a pizza when you get to the download stage.
After everything was unpacked, I found that Debian's desktop defaults included GNOME and KDE. Out of curiosity, I tried both desktop environments to see how they'd handle on a system with limited memory. To my surprise, they were fairly usable, though not exactly snappy. After a while, I installed Blackbox instead. After a quick apt-get install blackbox I logged out of GNOME and found that the GNOME Display Manager (GDM) now had an entry for Blackbox. It was much faster.
Debian's package collection is huge. It includes many lightweight apps that are well-suited to slower machines. (It also has plenty of full-featured apps that are best used with faster machines.) It's too bad that there isn't a "lightweight desktop" task that users can select to install lightweight applications, but if you know what you're looking for, it should be easy enough to find suitable apps in Debian.
The Debian guide recommends a minimum of a Pentium 100 and 64MB of RAM for desktop systems, and at least 1GB of disk space -- specifically, at least 1.8GB for the Desktop task.
Damn Small Linux
Damn Small Linux (DSL) is a damn fine Linux distro. This was the first time I used DSL for any period of time, and I was impressed by what the DSL developers have managed to fit into a 50MB download.
You can run DSL as a live CD distro, or install it to the hard drive, USB media, or even run it inside Windows or Linux. See the DSL FAQ to find out which image you want to download.
After burning the CD, I whipped it into Igor's drive and took DSL for a spin. Even when it's running as a live CD, DSL's performance was really good on this tired old machine.
DSL includes SSL in the Dillo Web browser, so you can surf HTTPS sites using Dillo. (This isn't the default, SSL support is considered alpha in Dillo.) Sites that require JavaScript, such as Yahoo! Mail, may not work with Dillo, but I was able to check my bank balance online. DSL includes Firefox, though Firefox's performance on Igor was less than stellar.
Installing DSL to a hard drive or other media is easy. DSL includes scripts to install directly to a hard drive, but it isn't an installer in the sense that most Linux users are used to; instead, it's pretty much a one-shot deal. Even on an old machine, the install only takes a few minutes.
You can use APT with DSL, or you can use the MyDSL application to download apps ("extensions") for use with DSL. MyDSL is intuitive, and allows you to install new apps even when you're running DSL as a live CD. If you download new apps, you'll need to restart the window manager for them to show up in the application menus. DSL packs a lot into 50MB, but MyDSL provides a lot more.
If you're interested in this type of operating system, DSL has spawned a number of similar distros, though many seem to be inactive at this point.
DSL should be one of the first distros you consider for putting older hardware to work.
Next: Puppy, Vector, and STXComments
on Linux distros for older hardwareNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Shoked? yeah, I thunk so...
how many languages do you know besides (some) English? ever considered that for some, English might be a 3rd or 4th language?
Do you still feel as smug now?!
Do you still feel as smug now?!
Watch your sentence boundaries, pal.
Sadly, on my 166mhz/48mb DSL runs X like a molassis whereas Windows95 runs like lightning launching Java apps and playing mp3:s. Don't dare put in on the network though. Going back in time is such a chore.
You guys are WAY overplaying the "Linux is the savior" routine. Their are many varieties of Linux that are great operating systems; being free makes them even better. I love open-source software just as much as the next guy, but your verbal fellatio toward Linux is just a little much.
Why don't you be less dramatic and just say that Linux runs well. I have been through about 10 different Linux distros - Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Fedora, etc. While I have found them all to be great, nome of them is as great as you claim. I have run dual-boot and new machines side-by-side with Windows and Linux. I have never been blown away by Linux. I have used, setup, and repaired thousands of machines and various OSes, and I have to say that your claims are bogus.
I would pay for your plane ticket for you to come out here and show me a 300mhz machine that could keep up with even my fairly older Windows boxes.
Everyone knows that Windows is far from perfect, but don't bullshit us all by making your outrageous claims. Pound-for-pound, Linux is a better OS than Windows, but it can't move mountains with its barehands. Just tone down your Linux-spawned enthusiasm.
In response to someone else's post, I speak two languages. I'm not really sure how that applies to anything.
In summation, how your system runs doesn't have that much to do with what software you are running, and to some extent what hardware. If you treat your system like dirt, it will run that way. I have seen Windows 2k3 servers run flawlessly for a year straight, and I've seen a Linux smoothwall box get a virus after a few months. It really just depends on how you take care of what you have. There are hundreds of widely-used programs, and games that won't even run on boxes you are talking about. Sell your bullshit to people who don't know any better.
Why don't you be less dramatic and just say that Linux runs well. I have been through about 10 different Linux distros - Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Fedora, etc. While I have found them all to be great, nome of them is as great as you claim. I have run dual-boot and new machines side-by-side with Windows and Linux. I have never been blown away by Linux. I have used, setup, and repaired thousands of machines and various OSes, and I have to say that your claims are bogus.
I would pay for your plane ticket for you to come out here and show me a 300mhz machine that could keep up with even my fairly older Windows boxes.
Everyone knows that Windows is far from perfect, but don't bullshit us all by making your outrageous claims. Pound-for-pound, Linux is a better OS than Windows, but it can't move mountains with its barehands. Just tone down your Linux-spawned enthusiasm.
In response to someone else's post, I speak two languages. I'm not really sure how that applies to anything.
In summation, how your system runs doesn't have that much to do with what software you are running, and to some extent what hardware. If you treat your system like dirt, it will run that way. I have seen Windows 2k3 servers run flawlessly for a year straight, and I've seen a Linux smoothwall box get a virus after a few months. It really just depends on how you take care of what you have. There are hundreds of widely-used programs, and games that won't even run on boxes you are talking about. Sell your bullshit to people who don't know any better.
okey
im running ubuntuDapper on a 350mhz comp with an ati rage pro card
Im using 90mb of 310 when i have plain desktop using Gnome!!!
Gnome =Windowsxp+extra eye candy
Still this computer runs faster than a windows xp comp with a 800mhz proc and 256mb ram:D
come on 350mhz pentium faster than a 800mhz;)
im running ubuntuDapper on a 350mhz comp with an ati rage pro card
Im using 90mb of 310 when i have plain desktop using Gnome!!!
Gnome =Windowsxp+extra eye candy
Still this computer runs faster than a windows xp comp with a 800mhz proc and 256mb ram:D
come on 350mhz pentium faster than a 800mhz;)
Agreed, overstating the capabilities of Linux does an injustice to all the many people who give their time & effort to the many projects that make up Linux.
One other point I'd like to remind people, Linux is *not* an Operating System. Linux is a *Kernel*.
It's up to people to bundle it with whatever other components they like to create something resembling an Operating System.
Last time I checked there are at least 491 different 'ditributions' of Linux as an OS.
Innovation & creativity is very good but this level of duplication & lack of focus is a hindrance not a help IMHO...
One other point I'd like to remind people, Linux is *not* an Operating System. Linux is a *Kernel*.
It's up to people to bundle it with whatever other components they like to create something resembling an Operating System.
Last time I checked there are at least 491 different 'ditributions' of Linux as an OS.
Innovation & creativity is very good but this level of duplication & lack of focus is a hindrance not a help IMHO...
my turn.
Mandrake 9.0 on a 450MHz laptop
Debian Sarge on a 300MHz desktop
Mandrake 7.2 on a Pentium Pro
All with KDE et plenty of eye candy.
(Mind you - these are not really that old computers and KDE is a ressources hog. For real speed, try DSL on *really* old machines)
All of the above faster, a lot faster, than Win98/W2k. Also faster than Debian on Mac and A LOT faster than OSX on Mac (by faster, I mean at boot up and at application loading).
You are welcome to speak about us fellating GNU/Linux, but may I suggest that you are in, shall we say, "Greek passive" role with your proprietery OS?!
Mandrake 9.0 on a 450MHz laptop
Debian Sarge on a 300MHz desktop
Mandrake 7.2 on a Pentium Pro
All with KDE et plenty of eye candy.
(Mind you - these are not really that old computers and KDE is a ressources hog. For real speed, try DSL on *really* old machines)
All of the above faster, a lot faster, than Win98/W2k. Also faster than Debian on Mac and A LOT faster than OSX on Mac (by faster, I mean at boot up and at application loading).
You are welcome to speak about us fellating GNU/Linux, but may I suggest that you are in, shall we say, "Greek passive" role with your proprietery OS?!
As far as I remember, those Win9x are still pretty damn fast. Too bad they are missing key features, and Microsoft won't support them to force expensive upgrades. As another poster said for basic desktop use Win95 runs circles around DSL.
I probably should try OS/2 for comparisons.
I think Linux is the best OS around for now and develops at impressive speed. I wouldn't really use anything else, even if Windows has all the fun games. But it sure won't hurt to keep my eyes open for alternatives. And to blindly promote Linux as the only possible option, flaming other OSes is a real turnoff.
I probably should try OS/2 for comparisons.
I think Linux is the best OS around for now and develops at impressive speed. I wouldn't really use anything else, even if Windows has all the fun games. But it sure won't hurt to keep my eyes open for alternatives. And to blindly promote Linux as the only possible option, flaming other OSes is a real turnoff.
A Smoothwall box got a virus!!??
Really!
Well that would be news! That would be the 2nd Linux virus out in the wild. Since I run Smoothwall I would sure appreciate it if you could point me to any documentation and fixes for that vulnerability.
If you can't then you are full of shit.
Really!
Well that would be news! That would be the 2nd Linux virus out in the wild. Since I run Smoothwall I would sure appreciate it if you could point me to any documentation and fixes for that vulnerability.
If you can't then you are full of shit.
some do overplay it yes.. but in general its good to have enthusiasm for the open source community which in the long run is just trying to help more people get into this movement..
but as you say "windows blows away the linux kernel" at times *may* be true for some...
IF
you
-dont install to many programs
-dont anger windows
+ run antivirus software to slow things down
++ run firewall software to slow things down
+++run anti-popup software to slow things down
+defragment everyday to maintain top speeds of that horrendous file system,
these are very big factors here for a -nicely- running operating system
unless your brainwashed like the rest to believe virus's, spyware, defragmenting and wasted time is a native factor of computing?
but as you say "windows blows away the linux kernel" at times *may* be true for some...
IF
you
-dont install to many programs
-dont anger windows
+ run antivirus software to slow things down
++ run firewall software to slow things down
+++run anti-popup software to slow things down
+defragment everyday to maintain top speeds of that horrendous file system,
these are very big factors here for a -nicely- running operating system
unless your brainwashed like the rest to believe virus's, spyware, defragmenting and wasted time is a native factor of computing?
Did you read the post below in the other thread. the part which says: In any case, I'm running Damn Small Linux on a 166MHz HP Vectra VL/5 PC with 48M RAM and a 2GB HD. I resurrected it as a "media PC" (ok, really only audio) from some junk my brother salvaged from the trash when an office recapped their HW, ages ago. It boots pretty quick (after installing to the HD) and plays internet radio well (via an old Sound Blaster card). The box had Win 95 on it when I started -- there was no chance in hell it would run XP.?
Try doing something like that with *ANY* Windblows version or, yes Maccies - I am talking about you guys, with any Apple product (since Mac OSs cannot run (yet) on x86, I mean using 1995 old harware and run, say, Mac OSX or even MacOS9 on it).
Or better: TRY IT YOURSELF and see if you are really bullsh*tting you about what GNU/Linux can, or cannot, do...
Try doing something like that with *ANY* Windblows version or, yes Maccies - I am talking about you guys, with any Apple product (since Mac OSs cannot run (yet) on x86, I mean using 1995 old harware and run, say, Mac OSX or even MacOS9 on it).
Or better: TRY IT YOURSELF and see if you are really bullsh*tting you about what GNU/Linux can, or cannot, do...
As a reply/response to everyone, let me reiterate. I thought I made it quite clear what my statement was. I have in no way insulted Linux as an OS/Kernel or otherwise. Linux (its myriad distributions) is an incredible OS. At home, I run XP Pro on my laptop because I haven't found a Linux distro with sufficient hardware support, and it's simply easier to travel with Windows. I think we can all agree that Windows (unfort.) is much more broadly supported in terms of connecting a mobile system through various means.
On my desktops at home, I run mostly dual-boots of XP and Ubuntu and a single Server 2003 machine. Linux is amazing, and truly is more reliable and more powerful in general than Windows (and than OS X). A Windows box can be run very effectively, possibly close to as well as a Linux box, but as someone said it takes a lot of work. For a Linux machine, you just use it, a Windows machine you have to babysit - constant virus checks and updates, spyware protection, ms updates, and a potpourri of other fixes.
My dispute is NOT that Windows is better than Linux in any way. Quite the contrary. However, I disagree wholeheartedly when you compare a 300mhz machine to what was originally stated as new Mac boxes. That's just ludicrous. If you had two machines of similar power, sure the Linux machine would most likely outperform the Windows machine on most levels. Your surrealism, however is destructive to the Linux community. Prospective Linux users will see your overzealous attitude as mere insanity and won't buy the hype. Or they will put Linux on their P4 and be upset when it doesn't fly to Mars out of pure speed.
In reference to the Smoothwall response, am I incorrect in using smoothwall (lowercase) for a generic term? It's a term that I have often heard and used for a box being used essentially as a firewall. We were using a linux box just outside of our router, so that any incoming attacks would essentially see an unpregnable box instead of a faulty Windows machine. If my terminology is incorrect, I apologize. This machine, however, did come under attack and was infected. I apologize for not having the virus logs to provide you, but I laughed at your response - "Prove it, or you're full of shit!! -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....calm down tiger.
I am not attacking your community, nor am I backing down from my original statement. My original statement was simply that you were overinflating the performance of your machines.
On my desktops at home, I run mostly dual-boots of XP and Ubuntu and a single Server 2003 machine. Linux is amazing, and truly is more reliable and more powerful in general than Windows (and than OS X). A Windows box can be run very effectively, possibly close to as well as a Linux box, but as someone said it takes a lot of work. For a Linux machine, you just use it, a Windows machine you have to babysit - constant virus checks and updates, spyware protection, ms updates, and a potpourri of other fixes.
My dispute is NOT that Windows is better than Linux in any way. Quite the contrary. However, I disagree wholeheartedly when you compare a 300mhz machine to what was originally stated as new Mac boxes. That's just ludicrous. If you had two machines of similar power, sure the Linux machine would most likely outperform the Windows machine on most levels. Your surrealism, however is destructive to the Linux community. Prospective Linux users will see your overzealous attitude as mere insanity and won't buy the hype. Or they will put Linux on their P4 and be upset when it doesn't fly to Mars out of pure speed.
In reference to the Smoothwall response, am I incorrect in using smoothwall (lowercase) for a generic term? It's a term that I have often heard and used for a box being used essentially as a firewall. We were using a linux box just outside of our router, so that any incoming attacks would essentially see an unpregnable box instead of a faulty Windows machine. If my terminology is incorrect, I apologize. This machine, however, did come under attack and was infected. I apologize for not having the virus logs to provide you, but I laughed at your response - "Prove it, or you're full of shit!! -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....calm down tiger.
I am not attacking your community, nor am I backing down from my original statement. My original statement was simply that you were overinflating the performance of your machines.
""Prove it, or you're full of shit!! -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....calm down tiger"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
Alright, I'm calm now. The use of the term smoothwall to mean any firewall box is a new one to me. Could be.
Regardless, your statement that a Linux firewall was infected with a virus is wrong. The only Linux virus outside the lab was one that infected Red Hat (not sure which iteration). That virus barely made it out of the lab and was more proof of concept than anything. That your Linux firewall could have been cracked is entirely possible, that there was a virus infection is not.
It is likely that you don't know the difference between being cracked and being infected with a virus. There are plenty of people these days saying that Linux will get viruses just like MSWindows. Those people don't know what they are talking about. Due to an entirely different architecture, hundreds of distros and numerous iterations of each distro Linux will never provide the base for viruses that MSWindows does.
Could one box be infected with a virus once it was compromised? I guess so. If that were happening I am sure I would have read about it by now, yet I have not. Maybe your the leading edge. Then again, maybe your full of shit like I said.
Only someone totally ignorant could talk about virus infected Linux machines. That may not be the case forever but for now it is.
Alright, I'm calm now. The use of the term smoothwall to mean any firewall box is a new one to me. Could be.
Regardless, your statement that a Linux firewall was infected with a virus is wrong. The only Linux virus outside the lab was one that infected Red Hat (not sure which iteration). That virus barely made it out of the lab and was more proof of concept than anything. That your Linux firewall could have been cracked is entirely possible, that there was a virus infection is not.
It is likely that you don't know the difference between being cracked and being infected with a virus. There are plenty of people these days saying that Linux will get viruses just like MSWindows. Those people don't know what they are talking about. Due to an entirely different architecture, hundreds of distros and numerous iterations of each distro Linux will never provide the base for viruses that MSWindows does.
Could one box be infected with a virus once it was compromised? I guess so. If that were happening I am sure I would have read about it by now, yet I have not. Maybe your the leading edge. Then again, maybe your full of shit like I said.
Only someone totally ignorant could talk about virus infected Linux machines. That may not be the case forever but for now it is.
At home, I run XP Pro on my laptop because I haven't found a Linux distro with sufficient hardware support, and it's simply easier to travel with Windows. I think we can all agree that Windows (unfort.) is much more broadly supported in terms of connecting a mobile system through various means.
I disagree. Your problem probably comes form running Ubuntu. Try Kanotix for top hardware support. As for connectivity, GNU/Linux comes with *many* more tools and capabilities than MS.
I disagree wholeheartedly when you compare a 300mhz machine to what was originally stated as new Mac boxes.
Well, what I can say?! I am truly sorry that you "disagree wholeheartedly" with something I saw with my own eyes during a LUG meeting. Now, the Apple machine was *not* a top-of-the-line Apple box, but a rather small one which, if I remember well, was sold no screen or keyboard attached. It was super silent and about the size of a small notebook. So it was definitely not the fastest Apple out there, but it was brand new (my friend said that it was Apple's latest baby). My friend and I compared the speed of Aqua versus KDE, the time it took to load Open Office, downloads and a couple of other things. Each time my 300MHz Debian-Sarge box was *much* faster.
I do not mean to say that any of the above is somehow scientific. But it simply shows that instead of spening money on a fancy looking but underperforming Mac and its associated bloatware, you could get a better solution for 200 bucks or less, or even for free if you know where to look, by installing Debian on an old machine.
Not to mention the fact that Apple product are corporate and proprietary whereas Debian is free and community based. [I know, I will get "commies and hippies" comments for saying this...]
I disagree. Your problem probably comes form running Ubuntu. Try Kanotix for top hardware support. As for connectivity, GNU/Linux comes with *many* more tools and capabilities than MS.
I disagree wholeheartedly when you compare a 300mhz machine to what was originally stated as new Mac boxes.
Well, what I can say?! I am truly sorry that you "disagree wholeheartedly" with something I saw with my own eyes during a LUG meeting. Now, the Apple machine was *not* a top-of-the-line Apple box, but a rather small one which, if I remember well, was sold no screen or keyboard attached. It was super silent and about the size of a small notebook. So it was definitely not the fastest Apple out there, but it was brand new (my friend said that it was Apple's latest baby). My friend and I compared the speed of Aqua versus KDE, the time it took to load Open Office, downloads and a couple of other things. Each time my 300MHz Debian-Sarge box was *much* faster.
I do not mean to say that any of the above is somehow scientific. But it simply shows that instead of spening money on a fancy looking but underperforming Mac and its associated bloatware, you could get a better solution for 200 bucks or less, or even for free if you know where to look, by installing Debian on an old machine.
Not to mention the fact that Apple product are corporate and proprietary whereas Debian is free and community based. [I know, I will get "commies and hippies" comments for saying this...]
it was a mini Mac (will Apple users comment?!)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 04, 2006 12:24 AM
the Apple machine was *not* a top-of-the-line Apple box, but a rather small one which, if I remember well, was sold no screen or keyboard attached. It was super silent and about the size of a small notebook. So it was definitely not the fastest Apple out there, but it was brand new (my friend said that it was Apple's latest baby).
This machine is a mini Mac. Here is how Apple describes it: (emphasis added by me)
Mac mini makes it easy and affordable to work with digital photos, movies, music, and the web. And now it all happens with the blazing speed of the Intel Core, in either Solo or Duo configurations. Choose the Solo for a low-cost entry to iLife ’06. Or select the Duo model for unprecedented power in such a small package — up to four times faster than previously. Coupled with an all new architecture and the world’s most advanced operating system, Mac OS X, Mac mini runs all your modern and innovative software, speedily.
source:<a href="http://www.apple.com/macmini/" title="apple.com">http://www.apple.com/macmini/</a apple.com>
Here are the official specs:
* 1.5GHz Intel Core Solo or 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo processor
* 2MB on-chip L2 cache
* 667MHz frontside bus
* 512MB of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300) on two DIMMs; supports up to 2GB
source: <a href="http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html" title="apple.com">http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html</a apple.com>
And with all that this Apple box (priced at 600-800$ + tax) get's beat by an old 300MHz Debian box. LOL!!
This machine is a mini Mac. Here is how Apple describes it: (emphasis added by me)
Mac mini makes it easy and affordable to work with digital photos, movies, music, and the web. And now it all happens with the blazing speed of the Intel Core, in either Solo or Duo configurations. Choose the Solo for a low-cost entry to iLife ’06. Or select the Duo model for unprecedented power in such a small package — up to four times faster than previously. Coupled with an all new architecture and the world’s most advanced operating system, Mac OS X, Mac mini runs all your modern and innovative software, speedily.
source:<a href="http://www.apple.com/macmini/" title="apple.com">http://www.apple.com/macmini/</a apple.com>
Here are the official specs:
* 1.5GHz Intel Core Solo or 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo processor
* 2MB on-chip L2 cache
* 667MHz frontside bus
* 512MB of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300) on two DIMMs; supports up to 2GB
source: <a href="http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html" title="apple.com">http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html</a apple.com>
And with all that this Apple box (priced at 600-800$ + tax) get's beat by an old 300MHz Debian box. LOL!!
I have noticed that GNU/Linux like to use old hardware - sometimes the older the better - Windows users and, even more so, Mac users actually *feel good* when they get more expensive hardware to run their bloatware (I suppose that they think that MHzes kind of compensate for their lack of skills).
Apple users, in particular, are the worst techno-snobs I have ever seen. They *love* their bloatware and they *love* to spend their money on the (already overpriced) hardware needed to run it.
So among some computer users, the GNU/Linux' ability to run very well on older hardware is actually a liability, not an asset.
Go figure...
Apple users, in particular, are the worst techno-snobs I have ever seen. They *love* their bloatware and they *love* to spend their money on the (already overpriced) hardware needed to run it.
So among some computer users, the GNU/Linux' ability to run very well on older hardware is actually a liability, not an asset.
Go figure...
Oh my what a binary world.
Yes that's why mac have the longest life spawn and the best resale value....pfff
Dude, we just dislike use broach file for let linux run finally *properly* and dislike to compile the latest alpha-drivers from the CVS overnight to get two years old model printer work properly with correct color gamma. We also dislike run terrible *bloatware* of openoffice.org and tired to see screwed M$ Word documents in OOo Writer. Therefore we want to buy nice Apple powerbook with nice hardware, which is _CHEAPER_ than chinese Lenovo (aka IBM Thingy Pad, covered by black powder of an army rubber).
All else is OK with your linux — running well on the *servers* (unless OpenSolaris installed).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
All else is OK with your linux — running well on the *servers* (unless OpenSolaris installed).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
You, sir, are an idiot
It's not news, that same nut has been blasting mac users and embarrassing other Debian fellows for ages now on Newsforge.
"You, sir, are an idiot"
i second that
this person needs to go read a book
preferably a real one
before attacking the open source community in any form
i second that
this person needs to go read a book
preferably a real one
before attacking the open source community in any form
actually, you would benefit from reading a book or two also before posting that Apple is part of the "open source community in any form"
or maybe you never really read the OP?
maybe you should read a real post before trying your first real book?
or maybe you never really read the OP?
maybe you should read a real post before trying your first real book?
I never said apple is a part of the open source community.
they just seems to be stating a little hostility to software (OOo/some older linux drivers) when people work so hard to code the damn stuff hoping others will come along and improve/suggest on it.. having people bash their work must hurt somewhere
and by read a book i mean read a good general linux / distro book.
they just seems to be stating a little hostility to software (OOo/some older linux drivers) when people work so hard to code the damn stuff hoping others will come along and improve/suggest on it.. having people bash their work must hurt somewhere
and by read a book i mean read a good general linux / distro book.
What I can do: 486DX, 16MB of RAM 1 credit card size GNU/Linux distro (DSL). *ZERO* budget:
I can run DSL Linux on an old 486DX with 16MB of RAM from a credit-card size CD, install several servers, and do it all on a computer without any hard drives at all. In 5 min. If the machine does have a HD, I can install 15000+ Debian packages on it after making a hyper-easy install to the hard drive.
What you, or any other Maccie can do:
(please tell us here what you need in terms of hardware, software, media and budget to match or better these capabilities. Or, be really honest, bow your head in shame, and do not post anything at all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
I can run DSL Linux on an old 486DX with 16MB of RAM from a credit-card size CD, install several servers, and do it all on a computer without any hard drives at all. In 5 min. If the machine does have a HD, I can install 15000+ Debian packages on it after making a hyper-easy install to the hard drive.
What you, or any other Maccie can do:
(please tell us here what you need in terms of hardware, software, media and budget to match or better these capabilities. Or, be really honest, bow your head in shame, and do not post anything at all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
they are not going to answer anything, since:
1) Apple does not offer live-CDs
2) Apple does not offer credit card size installers
3) Apple does not offer 15000+ packages
4) Apple's current OSs do not run on late 1980's Apple chips
5) Apple makes you pay for everything
Hence - their silence (-: and our giggles<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P
1) Apple does not offer live-CDs
2) Apple does not offer credit card size installers
3) Apple does not offer 15000+ packages
4) Apple's current OSs do not run on late 1980's Apple chips
5) Apple makes you pay for everything
Hence - their silence (-: and our giggles<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P
I've built an entire network out of old hardware --- literally everything was kit that someone else was throwing out. Most of our kit was lower spec than that used in the article (and I suspect that the MS tests referenced at the start are based on better "old" hardware than I mean by the term)
Anyway, we used Slackware 9 (then current) with IceWM. Even got OpenOffice running (as with many programs in the article, it's fine once it's going though it does take a while to start).
I also got a very usuable, graphical system with networking running on a 486 laptop with about 200M disk and 20M RAM. That was using Deli linux. Again, I used IceWM with Siag Office, Dillo and Slypheed. You can install Slack 7 packages which meant I could add tetex and a PDF viewer. It even had a lightweight web server, PHP and SQLite which meant I could do development work on our websites on it.
Anyway, we used Slackware 9 (then current) with IceWM. Even got OpenOffice running (as with many programs in the article, it's fine once it's going though it does take a while to start).
I also got a very usuable, graphical system with networking running on a 486 laptop with about 200M disk and 20M RAM. That was using Deli linux. Again, I used IceWM with Siag Office, Dillo and Slypheed. You can install Slack 7 packages which meant I could add tetex and a PDF viewer. It even had a lightweight web server, PHP and SQLite which meant I could do development work on our websites on it.
Try troff/groff for typesetting, it is much lighter and smaller than TeTeX. If you can view manual pages, groff is installed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).
Please Clean up your Linux.com linking to Ad-CRAP.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 25, 2006 11:03 PM
TO follow this story and the comments then these comments don't tell the whole story as Linux.com comments should also be read.
Is there a connection between NewsForge and LINUX.com...? If so, then the crap of publishing these articles with two comment locations is something that we all see thru and are not too happy with.
If you link to your own sites in major articles...then LINK DIRECTLY TO THEM! I know that you want to increase page hits... but, the way you are intentionally doing this is DISHONEST to your viewers and to your advertisers.
Clean up your act Please. Thank-you!
Is there a connection between NewsForge and LINUX.com...? If so, then the crap of publishing these articles with two comment locations is something that we all see thru and are not too happy with.
If you link to your own sites in major articles...then LINK DIRECTLY TO THEM! I know that you want to increase page hits... but, the way you are intentionally doing this is DISHONEST to your viewers and to your advertisers.
Clean up your act Please. Thank-you!
Yes, Newsforge and Linux.com are both part of OSTG.
Check facts, then flame...
(Apologies for double post, forgot to change the subject line...)
Check facts, then flame...
(Apologies for double post, forgot to change the subject line...)
The X server that GNU/Linux uses is heavy and slow and not suitable for old hardware, but it has some advanced features that MS Windows doesn't have. So maybe the best way to use the GNU system on old hardware would be running a thin-client server on a newer machine and making the old boxes thin-client terminals?
Are there lighter alternatives for XOrg that can run the same X applications on the local machine?
I only know of framebuffer drivers and svgalibs that aren't compatible with X applications.
I only know of framebuffer drivers and svgalibs that aren't compatible with X applications.
As the other poster posted, he's aware that Linux.com and Newsforge and Slashdot are all part of OSTG. That's what's enabling the link-through. What the other posters may not have realized is that Linux.com is an exclusive club. You have to be registered in order to post. OSTG is using the higher volume site of Slashdot to drive traffic to Linux.com. Linux.com isn't as well known or as heavily trafficked as Slashdot. So when posting stories such as this one, there are a lot of new or infrequent visitors coming by. Since they are new or infrequent visitors, it's highly likely that many of them haven't registered at Linux.com so they can't post. That leaves the option of backing all the way out to slashdot to leave a comment, or backing out only once to Newsforge to leave a comment, since Newsforge allows anonymous posts.
The club over at Linux.com is trying to have its cake and eat it too. They want to retain the exclusivity of posting only by registered users, while at the same time are trying to attract more eyeballs without losing them because they can't post at Linux.com and simply leave to go somewhere else instead of staying on Linux.com, Newsforge, or Slashdot.
The detour to Newsforge because of the restriction on posting by registered users only on Linux.com shows that many visitors still won't register especially if they visit infrequently or for the first time, and at the same time shows how obstinate the Linux.com club (and the other OSTG site that evaluates tech stocks) is about the registration requirement to post. They'd rather have new visitors jump through hoops instead of allowing anonymous posts.
Last time I checked, DSL was Debian based. To see the applications in the menus after installing without rebooting, open a shell, su to root, then update-menus should be the command. If not, then type update- and hit tab twice rapidly in succession and choose from the given choices. Once you run the command, all the apps are listed in the appropriate menus. In case DSL can't decide which app belongs in which menu, if the menu app works the same as Debian, then you'll have a Lost & Found menu choice where apps that the menu application gets confused on are placed.
The above instructions for DSL and menus applies to the other applications reviewed as long as they are based on Debian. If not based on Debian, try the update- tab, tab trick anyway, and see what choices are available, or seek help for finding the equivalent commands in non-Debian based small distros.
One more issue with any Linux distro used on old systems. From what I remember reading, the new 2.6.x kernel requires more space. DSL, when I tried it, was using the 2.2.x kernel when 2.4.x was the latest, and was using the 2.4.x kernel as 2.6.x was just coming out iirc. My guess, without checking, is that it is using the 2.4.x kernel. Be aware that if you want to switch to the 2.6.x kernel for any reason, you may have problems with limited ram or limited disk space. Not to knock the 2.4.x kernel. It is still well supported and will be for quite a while, and should work better than the 2.6.x kernel because it retains support for all types of hardware, where the 2.6.x kernel started dropping support (from what I remember reading) for some really old hardware and requires more disk space and ram for even a very minimal install.
As for the opinion on DSL, from my tryouts of it some 4-5 years ago, I'd recommend it as well. It's great to see that it is still supported and under continued development.
Now if I could only get OpenOffice.org, Firefox and Acroreader to see the new HP 4+ printer connected to one of my Debian boxes instead of the printer it replaced...then I wouldn't have to convert files to pdf and open them with a kde app to print them. Old printer, Epson ink jet, via parallel, worked fine with cups, remove Epson, replace with HP, edit cups, restart cups, kde apps see the HP, OpenOffice, Firefox, Acroreader all still see the Epson only, with no option for adding new printers under these apps.
Ahhh, the joys of GNU/Linux!
The club over at Linux.com is trying to have its cake and eat it too. They want to retain the exclusivity of posting only by registered users, while at the same time are trying to attract more eyeballs without losing them because they can't post at Linux.com and simply leave to go somewhere else instead of staying on Linux.com, Newsforge, or Slashdot.
The detour to Newsforge because of the restriction on posting by registered users only on Linux.com shows that many visitors still won't register especially if they visit infrequently or for the first time, and at the same time shows how obstinate the Linux.com club (and the other OSTG site that evaluates tech stocks) is about the registration requirement to post. They'd rather have new visitors jump through hoops instead of allowing anonymous posts.
If you download new apps, you'll need to restart the window manager for them to show up in the application menus
Last time I checked, DSL was Debian based. To see the applications in the menus after installing without rebooting, open a shell, su to root, then update-menus should be the command. If not, then type update- and hit tab twice rapidly in succession and choose from the given choices. Once you run the command, all the apps are listed in the appropriate menus. In case DSL can't decide which app belongs in which menu, if the menu app works the same as Debian, then you'll have a Lost & Found menu choice where apps that the menu application gets confused on are placed.
The above instructions for DSL and menus applies to the other applications reviewed as long as they are based on Debian. If not based on Debian, try the update- tab, tab trick anyway, and see what choices are available, or seek help for finding the equivalent commands in non-Debian based small distros.
One more issue with any Linux distro used on old systems. From what I remember reading, the new 2.6.x kernel requires more space. DSL, when I tried it, was using the 2.2.x kernel when 2.4.x was the latest, and was using the 2.4.x kernel as 2.6.x was just coming out iirc. My guess, without checking, is that it is using the 2.4.x kernel. Be aware that if you want to switch to the 2.6.x kernel for any reason, you may have problems with limited ram or limited disk space. Not to knock the 2.4.x kernel. It is still well supported and will be for quite a while, and should work better than the 2.6.x kernel because it retains support for all types of hardware, where the 2.6.x kernel started dropping support (from what I remember reading) for some really old hardware and requires more disk space and ram for even a very minimal install.
As for the opinion on DSL, from my tryouts of it some 4-5 years ago, I'd recommend it as well. It's great to see that it is still supported and under continued development.
Now if I could only get OpenOffice.org, Firefox and Acroreader to see the new HP 4+ printer connected to one of my Debian boxes instead of the printer it replaced...then I wouldn't have to convert files to pdf and open them with a kde app to print them. Old printer, Epson ink jet, via parallel, worked fine with cups, remove Epson, replace with HP, edit cups, restart cups, kde apps see the HP, OpenOffice, Firefox, Acroreader all still see the Epson only, with no option for adding new printers under these apps.
Ahhh, the joys of GNU/Linux!
I run alot of _really_ old hardware. Sparcs and sgis from 10 years ago, alphas from even earlier, and even a bit of x86 here and there. About the only thing of mine windows has come close to running on were the alphas, and even then that support has long been dropped. Linux however runs on _every_ platform I have regardless of age or architecture. It's the only OS in existance that has lay to that claim. To say otherwise is just.. ignorance. Go Microsoft go, you'll get your facts right sooner or later I'm sure. Most likely after it's too late<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P
I'm as big a Linux bigot as the next man but have never heard of NetBSD?
As another reply mentioned, NetBSD can probably top Linux in this regard (see <a href="http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/" title="netbsd.org">here</a netbsd.org> for evidence - yes, they do SPARC, SGI, ALPHA...). I used to run NetBSD on my Amiga (before Linux 68k had anything useful), and in the years since they have continued their trend of making NetBSD boot on practically anything that has a processor. I wouldn't be totally surprised to see a lawnmower show up on the ports list eventually. (Heh, especially something like <a href="http://www.friendlyrobotics.com/" title="friendlyrobotics.com">this</a friendlyrobotics.com>!)
In any case, I'm running Damn Small Linux on a 166MHz HP Vectra VL/5 PC with 48M RAM and a 2GB HD. I resurrected it as a "media PC" (ok, really only audio) from some junk my brother salvaged from the trash when an office recapped their HW, ages ago. It boots pretty quick (after installing to the HD) and plays internet radio well (via an old Sound Blaster card). The box had Win 95 on it when I started -- there was no chance in hell it would run XP. I was inspired by a friend who used DSL to do the same with an old Pacard Bell w/16M (he did end up adding another 16M to it, though...)
NetBSD has an impressive list indeed, but you miss the context of my statement: it doesn't run on all of _my_ platforms. Linux does<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
I tried NetBSD several times on one of the alphaserver 2100a's, even had a self-professed NetBSD expert assisting. In the end we had to give up, it just refused to boot successfuly on that system. OpenVMS and Linux had no issue with it however.
Have you personally ever tried NetBSD on some of the world's more obscure architectures and platforms? I've always found it to be somewhat of a nightmare to get up initially.
I tried NetBSD several times on one of the alphaserver 2100a's, even had a self-professed NetBSD expert assisting. In the end we had to give up, it just refused to boot successfuly on that system. OpenVMS and Linux had no issue with it however.
Have you personally ever tried NetBSD on some of the world's more obscure architectures and platforms? I've always found it to be somewhat of a nightmare to get up initially.
I have to say my email server is working fine with gentoo, even with amavis, spamassassin, razor2 -- full virus and spam scanning with delivery to several virtual domains -- on an old Dell Optiplex GX1. That's a PII-300MHz with 128 M RAM I picked up with no OS for $19.
What kind of mail server could I set up with Windoze on this box? And how well would it work on this hardware?
gentoo is a really clean distro iv been a long time slack user and still dearly miss using it when i have a second hd ill probably dual boot
but portage is amazing saves lots of time
and the installation was really fun
but portage is amazing saves lots of time
and the installation was really fun
I had a problem trying to install SuSE 9.1 on a Compaq Deskpro (Pentium Pro 200, 128mb ram).
I had messed up my SuSE 8.0 install and thought i'd give 9.1 a go instead.
This was a bad decision, as the Yast installer took ages to work out dependencies when adding and removing packages on install.
I'm not joking when I say it took me several hours to select everything i wanted.
It's now installed and works fine (except 9.1 doesn't seem to recognise the Cirrus Logic onboard VGA adapter, but then i wasn't going to use X anyway), but the kernel 2.6 is notably slower than 2.4.
This old version problem isn't really a problem as there are loads of old ISOs floating around the net, it is a problem however, if you want updates from SuSE as they seem to remove old update directories.
I have taken to mirroring them myself, which is annoying.
I had messed up my SuSE 8.0 install and thought i'd give 9.1 a go instead.
This was a bad decision, as the Yast installer took ages to work out dependencies when adding and removing packages on install.
I'm not joking when I say it took me several hours to select everything i wanted.
It's now installed and works fine (except 9.1 doesn't seem to recognise the Cirrus Logic onboard VGA adapter, but then i wasn't going to use X anyway), but the kernel 2.6 is notably slower than 2.4.
This old version problem isn't really a problem as there are loads of old ISOs floating around the net, it is a problem however, if you want updates from SuSE as they seem to remove old update directories.
I have taken to mirroring them myself, which is annoying.
I had a problem trying to install SuSE 9.1 on a Compaq Deskpro (Pentium Pro 200, 128mb ram).
I had messed up my SuSE 8.0 install and thought i'd give 9.1 a go instead. This was a bad decision, as the Yast installer took ages to work out dependencies when adding and removing packages on install. I'm not joking when I say it took me several hours to select everything i wanted.
I would not have made this reccomendation in the recent past, but since Debian Sarge and its new installer this is the way to go. Debian handles dependecies better than any other distro, is more secure and stable out of the box, comes with optimized applications, is totally free (as in speech and beer), and runs *fast* on older computers (such as my 300MHz box). Your PentiumPro will do very fine with FluxBox and do ok with KDE.
Forget (the RPM - based) Suse: it has nothing to offer. Once you get used to apt and Synaptic, you will never want to go back to "RPM hell" no matter how much less of a hell it is advetised to be!
Good luck!
(BTW - you can also install a full Deb with Damn Small Linux or Kanotix)
I had messed up my SuSE 8.0 install and thought i'd give 9.1 a go instead. This was a bad decision, as the Yast installer took ages to work out dependencies when adding and removing packages on install. I'm not joking when I say it took me several hours to select everything i wanted.
I would not have made this reccomendation in the recent past, but since Debian Sarge and its new installer this is the way to go. Debian handles dependecies better than any other distro, is more secure and stable out of the box, comes with optimized applications, is totally free (as in speech and beer), and runs *fast* on older computers (such as my 300MHz box). Your PentiumPro will do very fine with FluxBox and do ok with KDE.
Forget (the RPM - based) Suse: it has nothing to offer. Once you get used to apt and Synaptic, you will never want to go back to "RPM hell" no matter how much less of a hell it is advetised to be!
Good luck!
(BTW - you can also install a full Deb with Damn Small Linux or Kanotix)
This is something that's neat about Linux. Old hardware are detected and could be used with it. A surprising thing to some because old hardware are thought to be something to be thrown away already.
That I can install on a 386 Compaq with 40GB hard drive, floppy drive, and only 2MB of RAM. No cd-rom, usb, or pcmcia. All the floppy distros that I have found all try to set up a Ramdrive larger than available memory. This machine was donated, so I do not wish to invest any money in it to get it going by buying additional memory, external cd-rom drives, etc.
If this machine is behind a strong firewall, you will find at home using Slackware GNU/Linux 3.4, the last one featuring the lowmem install. It isn't really user friendly (you even miss the curses setup interface) but will run even on 2 MB.
(Obviously, forget X Windows: it requires at least 8 MB of RAM). I once had a guide about doing that; Google is your best friend.
(Obviously, forget X Windows: it requires at least 8 MB of RAM). I once had a guide about doing that; Google is your best friend.
Memory for a 386 is essentially free these days. About a year back, I cleaned out my on hand computer repair supplies and tossed 10 sticks from that era. Perhaps you have a neighborhood geek that has some laying around?
Linux can run on a 386 but a 386 is not a bad computer, it is a relic. You can probably get your hands on a better computer such as an 486 or a Pentium.
There are many Floppy-based Linux distributions, maybe some can run on your 386. Wikipedia has an article that lists many;
* <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniLinux" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniLinux</a wikipedia.org>
There are many Floppy-based Linux distributions, maybe some can run on your 386. Wikipedia has an article that lists many;
* <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniLinux" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniLinux</a wikipedia.org>
I'd really put some memory in, 2Megs barely hold an uncompressed linux-kernel, not to mention some kind of shell.
While it's not exactly Linux, you can install Minix on such a machine. I happen to have a Compaq 386 with 2 megs of memory and a 60 meg HDD. I've installed Minix on it and it works as a console-oriented OS just fine. With only 2 megs of memory, I had to run the Minix286 version, as the 386 version wanted 4 megs of memory (it might have run with only 2 megs, but I actually wanted to use it too). There's even a version that runs on the old XT (though it doesn't take advantage of 286+ protected-mode features for memory protection)
It's possible to browse the web (with a text-mode browser like Lynx), and if you know your HTML, you can write papers in vi (or whatever its non-vi text-editor is). It really makes you learn your nitty-gritty...things like classic vi (not vim), learning to use sed/awk/ed and the like, using "mail" to read your mail...all sorts of things. It's usable and you can even get extensions for serving web pages--it might even have CGI ability if you really looked hard, or wrote your own with the available C compiler.
Just a few ideas if you wanted a *nix-like OS on such an antique.
-gumnos
It's possible to browse the web (with a text-mode browser like Lynx), and if you know your HTML, you can write papers in vi (or whatever its non-vi text-editor is). It really makes you learn your nitty-gritty...things like classic vi (not vim), learning to use sed/awk/ed and the like, using "mail" to read your mail...all sorts of things. It's usable and you can even get extensions for serving web pages--it might even have CGI ability if you really looked hard, or wrote your own with the available C compiler.
Just a few ideas if you wanted a *nix-like OS on such an antique.
-gumnos
The only distro you can *install* on a machine with only 2MB is basiclinux
<a href="http://www.volny.cz/basiclinux/oldpc/" title="volny.cz">http://www.volny.cz/basiclinux/oldpc/</a volny.cz>
you can run some distros on machine with 2MB but basiclinux installer is the only installer I was able to use on an old notebook with 2MB RAM and floppy drive.
You also try looking at binaries from busybox, and for binaries compiled using microlibc. Standard glibc is a memory hog.
<a href="http://www.volny.cz/basiclinux/oldpc/" title="volny.cz">http://www.volny.cz/basiclinux/oldpc/</a volny.cz>
you can run some distros on machine with 2MB but basiclinux installer is the only installer I was able to use on an old notebook with 2MB RAM and floppy drive.
You also try looking at binaries from busybox, and for binaries compiled using microlibc. Standard glibc is a memory hog.
Re:You will have the easiest time with freedos.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 04, 2006 12:06 PM
Use freedos with opengem. There are many freeware dos programs available that can be used on freedos. <a href="http://www.freedos.org/" title="freedos.org">http://www.freedos.org/</a freedos.org> I don't think you have a enough memory for any linux installation. Minix might work but it doesn't have any productivity software. It is mostly a testing and education distro.
***bugmenot login
i have to say, while i highly reccomend DSL - not for olllld machines, just old-er
it had a lot of trouble on a 120mhz packardbell i had layin around
i have to say, while i highly reccomend DSL - not for olllld machines, just old-er
it had a lot of trouble on a 120mhz packardbell i had layin around
I think you meant the Compaq has a 40MB, not GB, hard disk. Personally, I think it's a very old and unusable system. It will be very hard to find a text based linux distribution that will work there, much less a graphic based one.
Though some may object to the Opera browser on principle in that it is not GPL (though it is developed using the Qt toolset), it is a good performer on older hardware, and is way more fully featured than Dillo or even Firefox (sans extensions).
I used to run Gentoo Linux on an old PII 300Mhz Dell with 288Mb of RAM. The performance wasn't stellar (and compiling updates during an 'emerge -u world' slowed things down even more), but the machine was quite usable. In a pinch I could remotely run Openoffice or Mozilla on another, faster machine on my LAN using 'ssh -X'.
I have since retired the machine, but if I were to resurrect it I'd probably pick DSL.
I used to run Gentoo Linux on an old PII 300Mhz Dell with 288Mb of RAM. The performance wasn't stellar (and compiling updates during an 'emerge -u world' slowed things down even more), but the machine was quite usable. In a pinch I could remotely run Openoffice or Mozilla on another, faster machine on my LAN using 'ssh -X'.
I have since retired the machine, but if I were to resurrect it I'd probably pick DSL.
I recently had the task if finding an OS for a PII 233 with 64 MB ram and 1.2GB HD. I tried several distros mentioned here. I liked STX mostly for the nice desktop look and feel. The one distro that really made me sit up and notice was Damn Small Linux. It ran faster from the CD than STX or Vector did from the hard drive.
Well to be fair DSL runs entirely in RAM so of course it's faster although the bootup speed was impressive too. If you want your older computer to work as fast as possible then DSL is the way to go. The desktop is not as user friendly as some of the others but with a little coaching a newbie should have no problem using it.
The biggest difficulty I found was that more RAM would have made a big difference. Some of the distros say they will run on 64MB but you really don't want to listen to your HD spinning to swap data every time you switch applications. Of course I expect more out of a multi tasking OS today than I would have 7 or 8 years ago and that's no fault of any of these distros.
Well to be fair DSL runs entirely in RAM so of course it's faster although the bootup speed was impressive too. If you want your older computer to work as fast as possible then DSL is the way to go. The desktop is not as user friendly as some of the others but with a little coaching a newbie should have no problem using it.
The biggest difficulty I found was that more RAM would have made a big difference. Some of the distros say they will run on 64MB but you really don't want to listen to your HD spinning to swap data every time you switch applications. Of course I expect more out of a multi tasking OS today than I would have 7 or 8 years ago and that's no fault of any of these distros.
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.back.painreliefnetwork.net/lowbac<nobr>k<wbr></nobr> pain.htm] Low back pain [/URL]
[URL=http://blog.gala.net/uploads/painreliefback/<nobr>b<wbr></nobr> ackpainrelief.htm] Back pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.weblog.ro/usercontent/13155/profi<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> es/kneepainrelief.htm] Knee pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Pain-R<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> lief.html] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.sitefights.com/community/scifi/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief/painreliefpreved.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Medica<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ion-Pain-Relief.html] Medication pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Natura<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> -Pain-Relief.html] Natural pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.back.painreliefnetwork.net/lowbac<nobr>k<wbr></nobr> pain.htm] Low back pain [/URL]
[URL=http://blog.gala.net/uploads/painreliefback/<nobr>b<wbr></nobr> ackpainrelief.htm] Back pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.weblog.ro/usercontent/13155/profi<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> es/kneepainrelief.htm] Knee pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Pain-R<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> lief.html] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.sitefights.com/community/scifi/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief/painreliefpreved.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Medica<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ion-Pain-Relief.html] Medication pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Natura<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> -Pain-Relief.html] Natural pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
Xbuntu - Xfce desktop attempt at low power machine
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 25, 2006 02:03 AM
Xbuntu - The Ubuntu attempt at a low power older machine replacement for W9x and NT boxes.
I used a 366 Gateway with 128MB ram and a 3 Gig hard drive. I loaded by Ubuntu CD and chose the server install and then followed the directions. It seems that for really low RAM use, they need to adopt the Damn Small Linux (DSL) route. But, it ran ok. I had extra RAM and got it all on less than 2GIG HD. I think it would have been OK with 64MB RAM, but not less than that (if anyone else has tried less then it would be interesting to hear your results). Basic install did not have OpenOffice (of course a huge memory hog), but AbiWork's newest versions supporting an ODT export feature was not even gettable in the respository yet. I have been told by a comment on another thread that the Dapper Drake version due out in April will have stuff that folks are looking for in Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, and Xubuntu. I am looking forward to testing (note both of the Alpha Dapper Flight 4 tests of the live CD version of Kubutnu and Edubuntu had serious graphics problems on my Latitude C800 -a machine that ran the breezy badger Live CD like a charm, instead with these two alpha live cds booted into a screen where there were 3 screens overlayed each other and it was totally unsuable, for Alpha, well, this was expected, hopefully, that will be fixed by April 29th).
Note: I also took the 366 Gateway after the Xubuntu install and added lots of ram hungry parts such as open office, video stuff, etc... I used the Automatix installer for these (and it worked fine with Xubuntu):
<a href="http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=66563" title="ubuntuforums.org">http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=66563</a ubuntuforums.org>
So - the result was that for all this I needed 128MB of RAM (had 3 MB left over when running apps that I was testing). The 3 GIG of HD space was pretty stuffed, and I did not install all of the Automatix options at all... (but could do work, but of course there was not much room left over to store alot of graphical audio or video content, but was able to use external USB storage ok)... Xfce was quick enough... BUT - it was not as quick as running DSL with the " dsl toram " install command of course.
Xubuntu is the wrong name for this. It really needs to be with a number after it so that others can automate certain types of installs. For example: Xubuntu-128 (larger), Xubuntu-64 (medium), Xubuntu-32 (light)... like that!
As a replacement for W9x, on those old hardware boxes, right now, Xubuntu is not quite there. Maybe in April it will be?
I used a 366 Gateway with 128MB ram and a 3 Gig hard drive. I loaded by Ubuntu CD and chose the server install and then followed the directions. It seems that for really low RAM use, they need to adopt the Damn Small Linux (DSL) route. But, it ran ok. I had extra RAM and got it all on less than 2GIG HD. I think it would have been OK with 64MB RAM, but not less than that (if anyone else has tried less then it would be interesting to hear your results). Basic install did not have OpenOffice (of course a huge memory hog), but AbiWork's newest versions supporting an ODT export feature was not even gettable in the respository yet. I have been told by a comment on another thread that the Dapper Drake version due out in April will have stuff that folks are looking for in Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, and Xubuntu. I am looking forward to testing (note both of the Alpha Dapper Flight 4 tests of the live CD version of Kubutnu and Edubuntu had serious graphics problems on my Latitude C800 -a machine that ran the breezy badger Live CD like a charm, instead with these two alpha live cds booted into a screen where there were 3 screens overlayed each other and it was totally unsuable, for Alpha, well, this was expected, hopefully, that will be fixed by April 29th).
Note: I also took the 366 Gateway after the Xubuntu install and added lots of ram hungry parts such as open office, video stuff, etc... I used the Automatix installer for these (and it worked fine with Xubuntu):
<a href="http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=66563" title="ubuntuforums.org">http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=66563</a ubuntuforums.org>
So - the result was that for all this I needed 128MB of RAM (had 3 MB left over when running apps that I was testing). The 3 GIG of HD space was pretty stuffed, and I did not install all of the Automatix options at all... (but could do work, but of course there was not much room left over to store alot of graphical audio or video content, but was able to use external USB storage ok)... Xfce was quick enough... BUT - it was not as quick as running DSL with the " dsl toram " install command of course.
Xubuntu is the wrong name for this. It really needs to be with a number after it so that others can automate certain types of installs. For example: Xubuntu-128 (larger), Xubuntu-64 (medium), Xubuntu-32 (light)... like that!
As a replacement for W9x, on those old hardware boxes, right now, Xubuntu is not quite there. Maybe in April it will be?
Xbuntu - does this comes with Security updates ?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 25, 2006 02:20 AM
If the Xubuntu stuff were to come with security updating like the rest of the Ubuntu family, then that will be an advantage over some of the other lighter distros.
Right now, getting new versions and replacing the older installs (because of security notices) with a newer gets really old very very quickly (especially if having to do it for friends or relatives who have asked us about a new computer with security updates to replace their old W9x that is no longer supported by Microsoft)! The only hedge I have stopping the install of LINUX for every one I know, is that I know them, I have used SuSE 9.3 (supported by SuSE for 2 years), however, the newer Ubuntu Pre-Dapper (dapper goals) Edubuntu pages say they will support with upgrades and security updates each released edubuntu version for 3 years on desktop and 5 years on Servers.... WOW.
If the same level of upgrades and security updates were also extended to Xbuntu. Then what ever version Xubuntu-128, Xbuntu-64, or Xubuntu-32... would be a no brain replacement for those old Windows OS's at grandma's house that she only uses to check email, see pictures of the grand-kids, and check out some receipe sites.
For multi-media, Ram Rules. Xubuntu, with security updates, well that might tip the scales.
Right now, getting new versions and replacing the older installs (because of security notices) with a newer gets really old very very quickly (especially if having to do it for friends or relatives who have asked us about a new computer with security updates to replace their old W9x that is no longer supported by Microsoft)! The only hedge I have stopping the install of LINUX for every one I know, is that I know them, I have used SuSE 9.3 (supported by SuSE for 2 years), however, the newer Ubuntu Pre-Dapper (dapper goals) Edubuntu pages say they will support with upgrades and security updates each released edubuntu version for 3 years on desktop and 5 years on Servers.... WOW.
If the same level of upgrades and security updates were also extended to Xbuntu. Then what ever version Xubuntu-128, Xbuntu-64, or Xubuntu-32... would be a no brain replacement for those old Windows OS's at grandma's house that she only uses to check email, see pictures of the grand-kids, and check out some receipe sites.
For multi-media, Ram Rules. Xubuntu, with security updates, well that might tip the scales.
Re:Xbuntu - does this comes with Security updates
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 03, 2006 06:51 PM
Xubuntu, for the most part, is identical to the other Ubuntu versions, so almost all of the updates for one apply perfectly to the other. The only real difference is the desktop environment itself, and since Xubuntu is an officially released version along with the others the three/five years of support should apply to it as well.
Re:Xbuntu - Xfce desktop attempt at low power mach
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 25, 2006 05:41 PM
True - I've just installed Xubuntu on a PII400 with 128MB ram and a 4GB HDD (it also has a 64MB Leadtek 5200TD!! What a waste...).
Anyway, it's not a fast as I thought it would be. 128MB is being fully utilised. Right now there's nothing running on that box and it's got 15MB free, though is using 18MB virtual.
Would be good to see how a minimal Suse 10.1 running Xfce is compared.
Anyway, it's not a fast as I thought it would be. 128MB is being fully utilised. Right now there's nothing running on that box and it's got 15MB free, though is using 18MB virtual.
Would be good to see how a minimal Suse 10.1 running Xfce is compared.
Xubuntu is nice, but replacing GNOME with Xfce only gets rid of some of the bloat. The Ubuntu base system with the 2.6 kernel etc takes up quite a lot of memory. I'm not sure whether it's all the services that are running by default, the kernel or what, but I have found I can use much less memory by building up from Debian stable (although Ubuntu is still my favourite distro for machines with more RAM!).
I recently installed Debian stable (sarge) on a 200Mhz Pentium with 80Mb of RAM. With the 2.4 kernel + XFree86 + Xfce 4.4beta + Firefox 1.0.4, I am using only ~32Mb of memory (excluding buffers)!
That's quite a difference, if you're happy installing Debian (which isn't difficult, really, if you are familiar with Linux). I had to compile the latest Xfce, but you could also get it by installing Debian unstable. Anyway, for your efforts, you get a full desktop environment on the latest version of a major distro. I personally find that much preferable to DSL etc for everyday use.
James.
Re:Xbuntu - Xfce desktop attempt at low power mach
Posted by: Administrator on February 25, 2006 07:59 AM
Have you tried ZenWalk? I made a post about it. It's very nice for older machines, and I have it running very well on a AMD K6-2 350MHz with 256MB SDRAM and a laptop with a Celeron 700MHz and 192MB SDRAM. In the laptop, it just flies.
It will problably not get all the attention that Xubuntu will when it's launched, but already has a nice set of packages to choose from. It's based on Slackware, so probably a lot of packages for Slackware will install fine.
It will problably not get all the attention that Xubuntu will when it's launched, but already has a nice set of packages to choose from. It's based on Slackware, so probably a lot of packages for Slackware will install fine.
I've got a bunch of old Pentium-166's and Pentium-233's lying about, all of which have 32 to 64 MB of DRAM, Diamond Stealth64 (yes, the old, venerable Trio64 video chipset) video boards, and maybe 3.2GB hard disks.
They also have 10/100 NICs in them.
What this has allowed me to do is take every one of those old Pentiums and turn them into LTSP terminals. The only thing I needed to do was stick a boot ROM into the NIC ($15), and off I went. For those who don't like taking apart the box to do this, no problem. You can simply 'cat' the Rom-O-Matic boot image to either a floppy disk or the system's hard disk, and your box will net-boot just as if it had a boot ROM in the NIC. It's freely downloadable at <a href="http://www.rom-o-matic.net./" title="www.rom-o-matic.net">http://www.rom-o-matic.net./</a www.rom-o-matic.net>
Or, if you've got something a little newer (e. g. a Dell OptiPlex GX1, which came with Pentium II-266's and up), you don't even need that; they have PXE-booting already built into them. For those who haven't heard of that before, PXE-booting is another way to do netbooting; think of it as a standardized, multi-vendor way to do boot ROMs for network cards.
The LTSP server cost me $3000 to build, plus another $1000 for a decent Gig-E switch to run it on, and that server takes care of nearly 30 terminals. Each of those terminals feels like it's a Pentium 4/2GHz with a GB of DRAM. The operating system in my case is Debian Sarge, but you can use any distro you want.
It's great. My users, rather skeptical at first, now love it. The boss, who saved a boatload on the office upgrade, loves it too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
They also have 10/100 NICs in them.
What this has allowed me to do is take every one of those old Pentiums and turn them into LTSP terminals. The only thing I needed to do was stick a boot ROM into the NIC ($15), and off I went. For those who don't like taking apart the box to do this, no problem. You can simply 'cat' the Rom-O-Matic boot image to either a floppy disk or the system's hard disk, and your box will net-boot just as if it had a boot ROM in the NIC. It's freely downloadable at <a href="http://www.rom-o-matic.net./" title="www.rom-o-matic.net">http://www.rom-o-matic.net./</a www.rom-o-matic.net>
Or, if you've got something a little newer (e. g. a Dell OptiPlex GX1, which came with Pentium II-266's and up), you don't even need that; they have PXE-booting already built into them. For those who haven't heard of that before, PXE-booting is another way to do netbooting; think of it as a standardized, multi-vendor way to do boot ROMs for network cards.
The LTSP server cost me $3000 to build, plus another $1000 for a decent Gig-E switch to run it on, and that server takes care of nearly 30 terminals. Each of those terminals feels like it's a Pentium 4/2GHz with a GB of DRAM. The operating system in my case is Debian Sarge, but you can use any distro you want.
It's great. My users, rather skeptical at first, now love it. The boss, who saved a boatload on the office upgrade, loves it too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
Edubuntu - 6.04 release will be LTSP and easy to..
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 25, 2006 07:55 AM
What is interesting. Is that the Edubuntu Dapper release in April will install LTSP by default.
I have read on the Edubuntu site where I bumped into some emails, where some of the key folks in both the LTSP project and the K12LTSP project are working with, or as part of, the Edubuntu Team to help make a LTSP install be so easy that you don't even have to know anything about LINUX to get it going! That will be something to see.
I am typing this now on the Edubuntu Live CD in a VMWare Session. It is working fine so far. I just tested the Kubuntu in VMware and it worked fine. The first app I opened was Gwenview it worked ok (but, the plug-ins were not installed so I could not test sending photos to the email client (selectable) where it reduces the size of the pictures to easy to send size, and opens the email client and attaches the reduced-in-size photos automaticly)! But, both the Live CDs worked fine so far (alpha 4 release so I expect to hit some rough spots)!
I have read on the Edubuntu site where I bumped into some emails, where some of the key folks in both the LTSP project and the K12LTSP project are working with, or as part of, the Edubuntu Team to help make a LTSP install be so easy that you don't even have to know anything about LINUX to get it going! That will be something to see.
I am typing this now on the Edubuntu Live CD in a VMWare Session. It is working fine so far. I just tested the Kubuntu in VMware and it worked fine. The first app I opened was Gwenview it worked ok (but, the plug-ins were not installed so I could not test sending photos to the email client (selectable) where it reduces the size of the pictures to easy to send size, and opens the email client and attaches the reduced-in-size photos automaticly)! But, both the Live CDs worked fine so far (alpha 4 release so I expect to hit some rough spots)!
Why do VMware Linux Guest loose clock time? Xen?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 25, 2006 09:32 AM
Why do VMware Linux Guest loose clock time?
The Edubuntu test (and the Breezy badger running in VMWare sessions) all seem to lose about a half a daay of time, or more, PER DAY. The clock never works right and has to be manually updated all the time with VMWare... oh- I can't seem to find instructions for installing VMware tools in the buntu guest...? But, when I finally get that figured out... time still does not work right (using latest VMware 5.5).
Does Xen virtual machine also lose time like the VMWare guests do (same with Fedora, and SuSE)?
Hmmm, seems to be a bit of a problem, not having one's clock be right!
The Edubuntu test (and the Breezy badger running in VMWare sessions) all seem to lose about a half a daay of time, or more, PER DAY. The clock never works right and has to be manually updated all the time with VMWare... oh- I can't seem to find instructions for installing VMware tools in the buntu guest...? But, when I finally get that figured out... time still does not work right (using latest VMware 5.5).
Does Xen virtual machine also lose time like the VMWare guests do (same with Fedora, and SuSE)?
Hmmm, seems to be a bit of a problem, not having one's clock be right!
Re:Why do VMware Linux Guest loose clock time? Xen
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 25, 2006 01:57 PM
I had this happening to me with Fedora Core2 on a dual boot machine. In Windows I used local time, but in FC2, I was using Greenwich Standard Time. Every time I used FC2 after having used Windows, my clock was a few hours off. The problem may be that all of your computers aren't using the same time standard. This is pretty easy to change, but I've forgotten the command I used.
Fix Here, But Distros and VMWare need to fix this!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 25, 2006 09:30 PM
Yea - There are ways to correct this. It seems that the problem (but, VMware does not say that it is totally correctable). Per below, it seems the new Linux Kernel uses the clock differently.
This is from VMWare support, and with google there are others that have written about this PROBLEM.
One really wonders why VMWare is not addressing this directly?
Clock in a Linux Guest Runs More Slowly or Quickly Than Real Time
Question
Why does the clock in my Linux guest consistently run more slowly or more quickly than real world time?
Answer
Linux guest operating systems keep time by counting timer interrupts. Unpatched 2.4 and earlier kernels program the virtual system timer to request clock interrupts at 100Hz (100 interrupts per second). 2.6 kernels, on the other hand, request interrupts at 1000Hz — ten times as often. Some 2.4 kernels modified by distribution vendors to contain 2.6 features also request 1000Hz interrupts, or in some cases, interrupts at other rates, such as 512Hz.
Furthermore, an SMP-capable Linux kernel requests additional timer interrupts from the virtual local APIC timer. An SMP-capable kernel running on a one-CPU system generates twice as many total timer interrupts as the corresponding UP kernel, while such a kernel running on a two-CPU system requests three times as many. In general, an SMP-capable kernel running on CPUs requests times as many interrupts per second as a UP kernel. For example, an unmodified 2.6 Linux kernel running on a two-CPU virtual machine requests a total of 3000 clock interrupts per second.
When a guest asks for more than 1000 clock interrupts per second, it can be difficult for the virtual machine to keep up, especially if other applications are running on the host at the same time. This can cause the clock in the guest operating system to fall so far behind real time that it is unable to catch up. The overhead of delivering so many virtual clock interrupts can also hurt guest performance and increase host CPU consumption.
It can also be difficult for the guest operating system to field 1000 clock interrupts per second. Even on real hardware, clock interrupts are sometimes lost because the operating system is busy for more than 1 millsecond and another clock interrupt comes in before the previous one was handled. Linux 2.6 contains code to detect such "lost ticks" and correct for them. Unfortunately, this code can trigger the correction spuriously in some cases, resulting in the Linux clock running more quickly than real time. This problem happens more often in a virtual machine than on real hard
This is from VMWare support, and with google there are others that have written about this PROBLEM.
One really wonders why VMWare is not addressing this directly?
Clock in a Linux Guest Runs More Slowly or Quickly Than Real Time
Question
Why does the clock in my Linux guest consistently run more slowly or more quickly than real world time?
Answer
Linux guest operating systems keep time by counting timer interrupts. Unpatched 2.4 and earlier kernels program the virtual system timer to request clock interrupts at 100Hz (100 interrupts per second). 2.6 kernels, on the other hand, request interrupts at 1000Hz — ten times as often. Some 2.4 kernels modified by distribution vendors to contain 2.6 features also request 1000Hz interrupts, or in some cases, interrupts at other rates, such as 512Hz.
Furthermore, an SMP-capable Linux kernel requests additional timer interrupts from the virtual local APIC timer. An SMP-capable kernel running on a one-CPU system generates twice as many total timer interrupts as the corresponding UP kernel, while such a kernel running on a two-CPU system requests three times as many. In general, an SMP-capable kernel running on CPUs requests times as many interrupts per second as a UP kernel. For example, an unmodified 2.6 Linux kernel running on a two-CPU virtual machine requests a total of 3000 clock interrupts per second.
When a guest asks for more than 1000 clock interrupts per second, it can be difficult for the virtual machine to keep up, especially if other applications are running on the host at the same time. This can cause the clock in the guest operating system to fall so far behind real time that it is unable to catch up. The overhead of delivering so many virtual clock interrupts can also hurt guest performance and increase host CPU consumption.
It can also be difficult for the guest operating system to field 1000 clock interrupts per second. Even on real hardware, clock interrupts are sometimes lost because the operating system is busy for more than 1 millsecond and another clock interrupt comes in before the previous one was handled. Linux 2.6 contains code to detect such "lost ticks" and correct for them. Unfortunately, this code can trigger the correction spuriously in some cases, resulting in the Linux clock running more quickly than real time. This problem happens more often in a virtual machine than on real hard
good article - important issue
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 25, 2006 02:15 AMFor really old machines I would reccommend Damn Small Linux (DSL) which is an absolutely fantastic distro.
And if you do not need GUI, even the lastest Kanotix runs very well on old hardware.
My fastest machine is a 800MHz and my slowest a PentiumPro!!
All work just fine and cost me no money.
The money I save goes to the FSF and the Debian project.
#