Linux Which Linux for ancient desktop?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pause

Contributor
I have an old desktop - more than eight years old i think, the BIOS is of 1999! I wanted to install a linux OS on it which would be compatible to its mearge hardware specs:

Intel Celeron 466 Mhz (yes, such computers did exist onces)
256 SD RAM (yes, these existed as well)
ummm...that's about all!

I have been using Puppy Linux on it and have been very happy with the results. But I want something I can install (I'll remove XP and install the Linux OS; I am running Puppy from the CD as of now.)

Please suggest some good but small Linux Distro which I can install. (Ubuntu won't install since the BIOS is pre-2000). Thx :)
 
Can Puppy not be installed to HDD?

With 256 mb RAM should be good enough to install latest Xubuntu, no?
 
Puppy cannot be 'installed' like others. i was thinking of an older version of ubuntu or the others, but they may not be very user-friendly. From what I understand, the user-friendly distros are a more recent phenomenon. I was basically looking for something less than 300 MB (80 MB ~ 300 MB) which could be installed. Perhaps you know of something which I could use ;)

Oh! and i have just 10 GB HDD on the desktop.
 
I ran RHEL5, suse10 on vms that had 256mb ram.

if you feel that system is slow, just switch to run level 3. but I am sure that you wont be able to play divx on that.
 
From xubuntu.org :

Minimum system requirements

To run the Desktop CD (LiveCD + Install CD), you need 128 MB RAM to run or 192 MB RAM to install. The Alternate Install CD only requires you to have 64 MB RAM.

To install Xubuntu, you need 1.5 GB of free space on your hard disk.

Once installed, Xubuntu can run with 192 MB RAM, but it is strongly recommended to have at least 256 MB RAM.
Click to expand...
 
greenhorn said:
pause , why lead us on the wild goose chase all over again :P
http://www.techenclave.com/open-source/which-linux-106678.html
here's your old thread :P

if thats not enough
http://www.techenclave.com/pc-peripherals/best-o-s-very-low-powered-105447.html
Click to expand...

Whoops! sorry abt that little mishap. but yes, i did try out the suggestions there. it turns out that the ubuntu will work only with post 1999 BIOS. my desktop has a 1999 BIOS which fails the cut-off. I am using puppy at this moment, but i understand now that puppy, and other 'small linux' suites cannot be installed like their big brother counterparts. let's just say that the XP on the system is misbehaving and therefore the quest to shift to linux. I did read thru a lot of reviews/advises online and even on TE and feel that fluxbuntu might be a better option. but again it is based on ubuntu and might not be compatible with my BIOS. I might try out kubuntu -- i think i did, but can't remember the results or why i don't have it on my desktop -- and see what the results come out to be. but guys, thanks a lot and yes, i apologise for the blooper :)
 
I'd recommend ARCH Linux - its barebones version and you can keep adding things you need on top of it - its pretty easy to do!

Try it and you won't regret it!

- Anand
 
I would suggest that you try slackware. It would be fun to install. Go with XFCE or fluxbox. A 2.4 series kernel might help with older hardware too.
 
tellanand said:
I'd recommend ARCH Linux - its barebones version and you can keep adding things you need on top of it - its pretty easy to do!

Try it and you won't regret it!

- Anand
Click to expand...

Not supported, sadly. the processor on the desktop is way below the minimum specs.
 
viridian said:
I would suggest that you try slackware. It would be fun to install. Go with XFCE or fluxbox. A 2.4 series kernel might help with older hardware too.
Click to expand...

Ummm... no. Slackware is nearly 700 MB big. I was looking for something more...rudimentary :) but i'll keep trying out all that comes my way and see which one works well. thx.
 
The installer CD is 700MB :-p . You can refuse most of the gunk during the package selection. AFAIK, it doesn't even have a livecd version. It's like, totally, hardcore :ohyeah:
pause said:
Ummm... no. Slackware is nearly 700 MB big. I was looking for something more...rudimentary :) but i'll keep trying out all that comes my way and see which one works well. thx.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom