Which edition?

[Cityscape]

Which edition would be fastest and run smoothest on a PC with 392 MB RAM and a 350 Mhz AMD CPU?
6.06 or 7.04 or 8.04 or 9.04?

I do not care at all about the OS being outdated......I'm still using Windows 98 and 2000!

I want to know which will be best for my computer?

And if you know how Ubuntu would run on this PC compared to XP that'd also be helpful. :)

[NoaHall]

Try Lubuntu or Xubuntu, or if that fails, use Puppy Linux or Damn Small Linux.

[wojox]

+1 xubuntu or puppy.

[GoldenSun]

I have tried to install ubuntu (many versions) on a 384mb ram and 400mhz pentium II cpu comp... It fails.

But I did have luck with DSL. So I vote for DSL.

[Cityscape]

I have tried to install ubuntu (many versions) on a 384mb ram and 400mhz pentium II cpu comp... It fails.

But I did have luck with DSL. So I vote for DSL.

Were you using a live CD? All my attempts to install by a live CD on this PC fail, it always freezes.

I am only interested in Ubuntu or Xubuntu but i heard Xubuntu is not much faster than Ubuntu anyway. If I was interested in anything else i would have kept the Mandrake Linux 10 that came installed on this PC.

[oboedad55]

+1 Puppy
#crunchbang, lightwight, based on Ubuntu. You can get it here;
http://crunchbanglinux.org/

Also try antiX here; http://antix.mepis.org/index.php/Main_Page

antiX is based on Mepis which is based on Debian. It's quite fast. People are recommending distros based on your specs and your desires, namely speed with low hardware resources. These listed are mostly LiveCDs so you can try them out and make sure they work with your hardware. As others have pointed out, I think you're going to have trouble running any mainstream Ubuntu version. Older versions won't help you.

[Cityscape]

I just want to know the performance differences between versions. Is that too hard to ask? And so far GoldenSun is the only one who has given me a decent answer.

[NoaHall]

I can tell you now, that Ubuntu won't run well on your computer. Don't argue with me, I know. It just won't work well. Lubuntu is a low spec version, bellow even Xubuntu. If you know how to install stuff from command line, I guess you could do a base install of Ubuntu, and use OpenBox or Lxde as the GUI.

8.04 is a long term support version, it will be supported for a long time.

No matter which "version" you use, it won't increase performance.

[Cityscape]

I can tell you now, that Ubuntu won't run well on your computer. Don't argue with me, I know. It just won't work well. Lubuntu is a low spec version, bellow even Xubuntu. If you know how to install stuff from command line, I guess you could do a base install of Ubuntu, and use OpenBox or Lxde as the GUI.

8.04 is a long term support version, it will be supported for a long time.

No matter which "version" you use, it won't increase performance.

So 4.10 won't run any better 9.04 then?

How would Ubuntu preform compared to XP?

[NoaHall]

4.10 is no longer supported, so don't install it. If you must install anything, install 8.04 , and then download lxde. Or use one of the alternatives already mentioned.

Ubuntu would be quicker than Linux, but it would be slow.

[earthpigg]

So 4.10 won't run any better 9.04 then?

How would Ubuntu preform compared to XP?

XP - before the extra antiviruses and other crap most users have load at boot is added - is lighter than Ubuntu.

XP+AntiVirus+MSN+Yahoo+etc, however, will run far slower than Ubuntu or just about anything based on Ubuntu.

another way to put it: if XP has more than 2 or 3 things loading in the taskbar on the lower right, it has become slower than Ubuntu due to end-user choices.

Linux is certainly possible on your machine.

I would strongly encourage you to stay in the Ubuntu "family" of GNU/Linux distributions, but steer clear of Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and Ubuntu.

Give crunchbang or my project linked in my sig a shot.

if you aren't afraid of the command line (and it really isn't scary. the Linux command line is far easier than the MS-DOS one.), let us know and we can walk you through a command-line install of Ubuntu with LXDE (or another DE, if you wish) as the graphical desktop environment.

[earthpigg]

Ubuntu would be quicker than Linux, but it would be slow.

what? i think you made a typo, sir.

[fluffman86]

You definitely need to run the most recent version. It will get you the newest kernel available, and they've only gotten faster with more hardware support. (unless you drop back to a really old kernel like 2.4 on DSL)

I've got a computer with similar specs. I would start with Ubuntu 9.04 and download the alternate install cd. That will work just fine. I never really noticed a difference between Ubuntu with Gnome and Xubuntu with XFCE. I've never tried Lubuntu or any of the others...never had to as Ubuntu has always been light enough.

And Ubuntu on that machine *should* run faster than XP, especially considering you won't need to run antivirus and antimalware software.

edit: and if you install jaunty (and I think you should), then be sure to use ext4 for the performance boost.

[earthpigg]

I just want to know the performance differences between versions. Is that too hard to ask? And so far GoldenSun is the only one who has given me a decent answer.

between Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and Ubuntu? performance differences are minimal, unfortunately.

not everyone agrees with the choices that where made in the development of Xubuntu...

[NoaHall]

what? i think you made a typo, sir.

No, I mean it will still be slow for Ubuntu :D But faster than XP.

[GoldenSun]

So 4.10 won't run any better 9.04 then?

How would Ubuntu preform compared to XP?

I had tiny xp before I put DSL on my low spec comp. It actually ran, but also booted in 50mb of ram. I had problems watching youtube videos on it because Nvidia legacy drivers for the TNT gpus suck pretty hard, and I couldn't get it to install. But under DSL, I could watch youtube, not flawlessly, but it was watchable.

I would only use this computer as a headless server as it has too low of specs to do any real computing.

[Cityscape]

4.10 is no longer supported, so don't install it. If you must install anything, install 8.04 , and then download lxde. Or use one of the alternatives already mentioned.

Ubuntu would be quicker than Linux, but it would be slow.

Did you mean quicker then other Linux distros or quicker then XP?

And how many times do i have to repeat things around here to get a straight answer? I told you all at the beggining that outdated does not matter a bit......I'm still using pre-2000 Windows!

[NoaHall]

I mean it will quicker than XP, but slow for Linux. I'd use Puppy or DSL.

Outdated does matter. Outdated means slow. Outdated means easy to attack. Outdated means there are hundreds of problems that have been corrected since.

[fluffman86]

See my post above...things are actually faster in the newer version.

But also, you really *DON'T* want to run a non-supported/outdated version of Ubuntu. When that happens, you can no longer install software without compiling from source. I've had that happen, and it's a total pain.

My old job used kiosk boxes made by nComputing which *REQUIRED* running Feisty. That was fine for a while, until it stopped being supported last year. Oh, need to install a new firefox because of that nasty bug? Download from firefox. Need to compile something, but don't have gcc installed? Have fun compiling gcc without gcc. :P

And if you're doing that, then why even run Ubuntu? Part of the reason for running Ubuntu is the ease of use when it comes to installing software from the repositories and getting all of the updates pushed to you automatically.

If you're wanting to go to all of the hassle, and spend more time working on making your computer work than actually working, then get gentoo or linux from scratch. :P

[Cityscape]

XP - before the extra antiviruses and other crap most users have load at boot is added - is lighter than Ubuntu.

XP+AntiVirus+MSN+Yahoo+etc, however, will run far slower than Ubuntu or just about anything based on Ubuntu.

another way to put it: if XP has more than 2 or 3 things loading in the taskbar on the lower right, it has become slower than Ubuntu due to end-user choices.

Linux is certainly possible on your machine.

I would strongly encourage you to stay in the Ubuntu "family" of GNU/Linux distributions, but steer clear of Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and Ubuntu.

Give crunchbang or my project linked in my sig a shot.

if you aren't afraid of the command line (and it really isn't scary. the Linux command line is far easier than the MS-DOS one.), let us know and we can walk you through a command-line install of Ubuntu with LXDE (or another DE, if you wish) as the graphical desktop environment.

Okay cause i just installed XP and it's speed is livable. So i've decided to install Ubuntu or an Ubuntu-based distro.

I am able navigate the command a fair bit (I use Terminal for many uses such as installing apps). What do you advise?

I could install:
- Ubuntu 8.04
- Xubuntu 8.04
- custom install like Earthpigg suggested
or anything else you guys could recommend?

[fluffman86]

Again, IMHO, the ext4 support in Jaunty outweighs any speed decreases it may have had (and I don't really think it had any).

Also, I would say Ubuntu over Xubuntu because I never noticed any speed increases with Xubuntu, and it was a bit more difficult to use.

[Cityscape]

I've decided to go with 9.04 or do you recommend 8.04? Should i go with regular Ubuntu or Xubuntu? What are the performance differences?

[earthpigg]

Outdated does matter. Outdated means slow. Outdated means easy to attack. Outdated means there are hundreds of problems that have been corrected since.

it also means that the software repositories will likely be shut down. ie: you will not be able to install new software without jumping through hoops.

In general terms, Linux becomes quicker and more efficient as time passes, not slower. ergo, newer stuff is sometimes faster than older stuff.

hence, folks are suggesting things that are both new and old - instead of just old.

This isn't Windows or OSX, where a company wants to pressure you to purchase a new computer every 3 years and thus has incentive to make each new version require a newer and newer computer.

[Cityscape]

Sorry, I'm used to Windows where things only get slower. :)

[fluffman86]

hahaha, like 3 times I've (sort-of) answered your question a minute or less before you post. :)

[NoaHall]

Like I said, Puppy or DSL. You should be able to even run those as a Live Disk.

[earthpigg]

I've decided to go with 9.04 or do you recommend 8.04? Should i go with regular Ubuntu or Xubuntu? What are the performance differences?

given those two choices, go with xubuntu. it may run a bit faster.

if you aren't happy with xubuntu's performance, come back here, re-read this thread, and consider installing LXDE. :D

installing LXDE can be done after-the-fact without uninstalling or removing or otherwise modifying Xubuntu in any way at all.... and we aren't talking about 'dual boot' here, either:

sudo apt-get install lxde

then log out of xubuntu.

at the login screen, select session -> lxde. put your username and password in, and login.

when you login to LXDE, you will notice a very significant performance increase, and still have Xubuntu installed if you ever want to login to xfce.

tell me if this makes things any clearer:

Ubuntu = Gnome desktop environment + Ubuntu
Kubuntu = KDE desktop environment + Ubuntu
Xubuntu = xfce desktop environment + Ubuntu
doesnt-officially-exist-yet = lxde desktop environment + Ubuntu

you can have as many desktop environments as you wish installed all at the same time and it wont slow your computer down... as long as you have the hard drive space. and, you will have access to all the same applications, files, folders, firefox bookmarks, etc, you already have in xubuntu. automatically, without you doing anything.

LXDE will take up about 100 mb extra (xubuntu installed will already take up about 1500 mb), so i highly recommend you give it a shot unless you end up completely happy and satisfied with xubuntu.

[Cityscape]

hahaha, like 3 times I've (sort-of) answered your question a minute or less before you post.
Yeah, I'm always typing while your answering! :)

[Cityscape]

Like I said, Puppy or DSL. You should be able to even run those as a Live Disk.
I told you that i only want Ubuntu or ubuntu family!

[Cityscape]

I've decided to go with 9.04.

Ubuntu or Xubuntu?

I prefer Ubuntu over anything else. KDE is way too heavy and wouldn't use any of the others except maybe Xfce.

[NoaHall]

I told you that i only want Ubuntu or ubuntu family!

Nope, you said anything we suggested. So, I'm suggesting quicker and more suitible things. What is it about Ubuntu that you want so much?

[fluffman86]

Still voting Ubuntu. I never saw the (supposed) speed advantages of Xubuntu.

[P4man]

I just want to know the performance differences between versions. Is that too hard to ask?

Actually, yes, it is, because how do you judge OS performance? Is Red Hat linux faster than AIX or Windows 2007 server? Impossible to tell.

All you can really judge is boot times and application performance on a given OS with your hardware, but considering different OS's tend to give you a different set of apps, you'll be comparing apples to oranges and banana's real quick.

Anyway, your biggest bottleneck is RAM. It puts a full blown ubuntu out of your reach (realistically). Id suggest giving Slitaz a try:

http://www.slitaz.org/en/

Runs in ~40Mb, keeping plenty of RAM for your apps and as cache. In fact it can easily run entirely in ram even on your machine. On my machine, it boots in under 20s and its incredibly fast. everythng is instantaneous, if there is an hourglass in it, I havent seen it yet :) It comes with decent mix of apps, including firefox.

[Cityscape]

when you login to LXDE, you will notice a very significant performance increase, and still have Xubuntu installed if you ever want to login to xfce.

tell me if this makes things any clearer:

Ubuntu = Gnome desktop environment + Ubuntu
Kubuntu = KDE desktop environment + Ubuntu
Xubuntu = xfce desktop environment + Ubuntu
doesnt-officially-exist-yet = lxde desktop environment + Ubuntu

you can have as many desktop environments as you wish installed all at the same time and it wont slow your computer down... as long as you have the hard drive space. and, you will have access to all the same applications, files, folders, firefox bookmarks, etc, you already have in xubuntu. automatically, without you doing anything.

LXDE will take up about 100 mb extra (xubuntu installed will already take up about 1500 mb), so i highly recommend you give it a shot unless you end up completely happy and satisfied with xubuntu.

So if i installed Xubuntu and did not like the Xfce desktop I could install the Gnome desktop and it would be just like Ubuntu 9.04? Would I lose a lot of speed by having 2 DE's installed?

And if I installed Ubuntu 9.04 then could I not install Xfce to make it just like Xubuntu?

[earthpigg]

I've decided to go with 9.04.

Ubuntu or Xubuntu?

I prefer Ubuntu over anything else. KDE is way too heavy and wouldn't use any of the others except maybe Xfce.

the long and short of it is that xfce is xubuntu, friend.

more accurately: xubuntu is ubuntu + xfce4 + a bunch of extra crap installed by default that you may or may not want, but which makes life easier.

[fluffman86]

When you install the desktop environment, a lot of extra apps come with it and it clutters up your menus. I find it annoying more than anything else.

Instead, I would start with Ubuntu from the alternate install CD, and if that runs too slowly you can add LXDE later because it comes with far fewer extra programs than XFCE

[earthpigg]

So if i installed Xubuntu and did not like the Xfce desktop I could install the Gnome desktop and it would be just like Ubuntu 9.04? Would I lose a lot of speed by having 2 DE's installed?

gnome-core is just gnome. ubuntu-desktop is gnome+extra stuff recommended by ubuntu that you may or may not want. same with kde and kubuntu-desktop and xfce and xubuntu-desktop.

but assuming you aren't letting your hard drive approach being 95% full, yes, it will all be peachy keen.

Linux will not let you fill your hard drive beyond 95%, and you will need a swap partition. that is the price we pay for never needing to defrag.

edit:

And if I installed Ubuntu 9.04 then could I not install Xfce to make it just like Xubuntu?

clarification: xubuntu-desktop includes xfce.

there is kde and kubuntu-desktop.
there is gnome and ubuntu-desktop.
there is xfce and xubuntu-desktop.

there is lxde, and there is no such thing presently as an official lubuntu-desktop.

but lxde by itself is great, and you will already have installed a bunch of stuff with xubuntu-desktop that you can keep on using.

[Cityscape]

Instead, I would start with Ubuntu from the alternate install CD, and if that runs too slowly you can add LXDE later because it comes with far fewer extra programs than XFCE

Thank you all (especially fluffman86 and earthpigg) for your answers :) I've made a decision.

I'm going to install Ubuntu 9.04 using the alternate CD and if it runs slow i will install a lighter desktop environment.

Where can I get the official alternate CD from?

[jocko]

At www.ubuntu.com (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download). Look under "Even more options".

[earthpigg]

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/downloadmirrors#alternate

scroll down, pick a mirror, find an ubuntu 9.04 alternate i386 .iso and download it.

new folks can be overwhelmed by all the choices they have, sometimes. let's go over what you chose, in order of importance from most important to least:

ubuntu is the distribution you have chosen.

9.04 is the version you have chosen. (not all distribution's even have version numbers, as they are rolling release.)

i386 is the architecture of your older computer (other options would be i686, Sun SPARC, IBM whatever-they-call-their-supercomputer-architecture, PowerPC, or amd64. amd64 is sometimes known as x86_64. intel got their name in the i_86 because they had the first mainstream x86 cpus. amd got their name in amd64 because they had the first mainstream 64-bit cpus. intel CPUs work fine with amd64, and amd CPUs work fine in i_86. Ubuntu gives you two choices here: i386 and amd64. Debian, which Ubuntu is based on, runs on over a dozen different architectures... from supercomputers to that old PowerPC Macintosh. you could theoretically compile ubuntu from source code and put it on a supercomputer, if you wanted.).

alternate is the installer you have chosen (not all distros give you this choice. Ubuntu gives you four: normal, wubi, alternate, and command line only.).

the Desktop Environment, you have not chosen yet, but GNOME will be installed to begin with. this is the least important of the choices available to you, even though this entire thread was started because you weren't sure which you wanted.

[Cityscape]

okay, and the alternate installer installs in text mode right? Graphical installer will not work on my PC.

[4Orbs]

Just to stir up the poison. If I were choosing an OS based solely on what I've read on this thread... I would install earthpigg's spin of Ubuntu with lxde. Then, if I didn't like lxde, I would install the Ubuntu desktop packages and choose the gnome session at the login screen. Xubuntu desktop is good also (especially thunar) but it is missing some of the conveniences found in the gnome version.

[oboedad55]

So 4.10 won't run any better 9.04 then?

How would Ubuntu preform compared to XP?

I have 9.04 and XP on my laptop and stock Ubuntu runs faster than XP, byt with your specs I'm afraid that it will still be too slow. If you really want Ubuntu go with Xubuntu as has been suggested. Otherwise try some of the other lightweight suggestions.

[earthpigg]

okay, and the alternate installer installs in text mode right? Graphical installer will not work on my PC.

the alternate installer is text-based menu driven.

ie: use the up and down arrow keys, and the tab key, to select your choices. no mouse, but not a lot of typing either.

[earthpigg]

If I were choosing an OS based solely on what I've read on this thread... I would install earthpigg's spin of Ubuntu with lxde.

recall that he is having problems with Ubuntu's graphical installer.

Masonux can be installed either via command line or via ubuntu's normal graphical installer. there is no text-based menu selection installer (what Ubuntu calls its 'alternate' installer) for Masonux at present.

i don't think cityscape wants to fiddle around at the command line just to get it up and running.

if Ubuntu's alternate installer fails cityscape, i'll walk him through a command line install.

[Cityscape]

the alternate installer is text-based menu driven.

ie: use the up and down arrow keys, and the tab key, to select your choices. no mouse, but not a lot of typing either.

Okay i've used the text-based installer when i did 5.10 so this will be no prob.

I'm gonna install Ubuntu then i'll follow Earthpigg's instructions in installing LXDE or another lightweight enviroment.

Thanks all :)

[Cityscape]

recall that he is having problems with Ubuntu's graphical installer.

Masonux can be installed either via command line or via ubuntu's normal graphical installer. there is no text-based menu selection installer (what Ubuntu calls its 'alternate' installer) for Masonux at present.

i don't think cityscape wants to fiddle around at the command line just to get it up and running.

if Ubuntu's alternate installer fails cityscape, i'll walk him through a command line install.

sounds good :)

[fela]

Try Linux from Scratch. It lets you install anything you want any way you want for any architecture.

[NoaHall]

Try Linux from Scratch. It lets you install anything you want any way you want for any architecture.

Don't bother suggesting anything - he'll scream at you cause he "only wants ubuntu family"

[Pirolocito]

Personally i recommend Crunchbang referred before. Is Ubuntu, but much more lightweight.

I have Crunchbang on Asus eee 701, with 512MB and 900Mhz and it just flies!!!! So it would be nice for you.

Puppy is also nice, but very limited...

[4Orbs]

I was screaming a lot back when I first started using Linux. Now I just pull my hair out.

[Cityscape]

LOL...you guys can be funny at times. I'm starting to feel a bit more at home here.

I've considered using churchbang and i still might. I will also in the future sometime setup Linux from scratch, sounds fun.

[earthpigg]

Try Linux from Scratch. It lets you install anything you want any way you want for any architecture.

did you read this thread at all?

seriously, wtf?

LFS is a book, not a distribution (http://www.amazon.com/Linux-Scratch-Gerard-Beekmans/dp/B002ACZTI4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252533711&sr=8-1).

[NoaHall]

You mean crunchbang ;)
And good! If you do it, it will avoid you getting disappointed with ubuntu's performance on your machine

Earthpigg - I think he means this - http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/livecd/

[earthpigg]

Earthpigg - I think he means this - http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/livecd/

still completely out of place in this thread... but, whatever :D

[NoaHall]

Well, if the user was more happy to use pure terminal , then yes, it would be a quicker solution. ;)

[earthpigg]

this thread happened a few days ago, and is very similar to this one:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1257988

[fela]

did you read this thread at all?

seriously, wtf?

LFS is a book, not a distribution (http://www.amazon.com/Linux-Scratch-Gerard-Beekmans/dp/B002ACZTI4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252533711&sr=8-1).

Umm, http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

Please google before thinking you know everything :) Sure it's a book, but it's a book that might aswell be called a distro, except it's your very own customized distro :)

And why should LFS be out of place in this thread? Anyone can learn, it's whether they want to that is the question. When I first started using Linux I was a complete newbie with no one to guide me apart from people on forums, wikis, etc. but now I'm pretty much a linux guru.

[earthpigg]

LFS is a book, not a distribution.

Please google before thinking you know everything

i believe i will send that comment back your way, sir.

"Linux From Scratch is a book, not a distribution" is an old joke.

like the good old joke about Ubuntu: Ubuntu is an ancient African word for 'I cannot configure Debian'

:D

no harm meant, as distributions do not have feelings that can be hurt.


And why should LFS be out of place in this thread?

quotes from the original poster:
I am only interested in Ubuntu or Xubuntu
i've decided to install Ubuntu or an Ubuntu-based distro.

im not calling questioning the OP's ability to learn and apply knowledge at all. by no means am i doing that.

just think its a bit odd - given what the OP has stated - to pop in and suggest something as obscure and seemingly random as LFS.

i may as well have popped in here and suggested FreeBSD or OS/2.


but, really, its not a huge deal.

i just found it amusing and it made my eyebrows furrow in bewilderment given the context of the thread... like when the Arch-ninjas pop into completely random threads and say "Arch Linux would solve this problem!!" and vanish.... so, i thought i'd toss a joke in of my own.

it did not actually occur to me, given the context of the thread, that you where actually suggesting he install LFS on that system given his stated present level of experience and his stated goals and desires.

[fela]

I like that - Ubuntu is an ancient african word meaning 'I cannot configure Debian'. Made me lol! :lol:

Although for me at least Debian was just as easy to configure as Ubuntu was. The only little problem was having to do a chroot from a livecd due to my initramfs somehow being corrupted - easy fix with chroot.

[Bachstelze]

LFS is not a distribution. That's the point of it.

[fela]

LFS is not a distribution. That's the point of it.

It's a guide to make your own distro.

[Cityscape]

Is it a book that helps you create your own distro?

[Bachstelze]

It's a guide to make your own distro.

If it's your own, by definition it's not a distro. In "distribution" there is "distribute", but you can't simply distribute your LFS system.

Is it a book that helps you create your own distro?

No, it's a book that, as its name implies, explains how to build your own Linux system from scratch, as opposed to using a pre-built system, which is called a distro.

[Cityscape]

Who is the author?

[Bachstelze]

Who is the author?

The project was initiated by Gerard Beekmans, but there's a lot of contributors.

[Cityscape]

The project was initiated by Gerard Beekmans, but there's a lot of contributors.
I'm confused now...

If i want to barrow the book from my library what do I look for?

[earthpigg]

I'm confused now...

If i want to barrow the book from my library what do I look for?

the book "Linux From Scratch"...

according to this (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/livecd/), however, the book is also included on the LiveCD:

Includes all sources and the LFS Book
This spares you from having to download all the packages individually, which can be quite time consuming. It also removes the need for a working internet connection.

but i don't see a direct download to just the book.

i suppose you could try booting from the livecd and just copying the book to another medium... assuming its a simple/standard format like html, txt, or pdf.

[Bachstelze]

i suppose you could try booting from the livecd and just copying the book to another medium... assuming its a simple/standard format like html, txt, or pdf.

You can also just download it (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/download.html) from the wobsite.

[Cityscape]

I just read in a book about Ubuntu a section that says: "You can run Ubuntu Linux on older, slower equipment if you run in text mode (Enter at boot prompt)" instead of Live mode.

Does this mean I can install using text mode on my live CD or do I need to get the alternate CD (like I thought I did).

[freackout]

Which edition would be fastest and run smoothest on a PC with 392 MB RAM and a 350 Mhz AMD CPU?
6.06 or 7.04 or 8.04 or 9.04?

I do not care at all about the OS being outdated......I'm still using Windows 98 and 2000!

I want to know which will be best for my computer?

And if you know how Ubuntu would run on this PC compared to XP that'd also be helpful. :)

use absolute the link is here for such an old low powered system http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=absolute

[Cityscape]

use absolute the link is here for such an old low powered system http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=absolute
It's not an option for me. Looks like it uses KDE or ROX which I hate.

[Cityscape]

I just read in a book about Ubuntu a section that says: "You can run Ubuntu Linux on older, slower equipment if you run in text mode (Enter at boot prompt)" instead of Live mode.

Does this mean I can install using text mode on my live CD or do I need to get the alternate CD (like I thought I did).
Now does anyone have advice on this???

[earthpigg]

Now does anyone have advice on this???

"text mode" can mean a few different things.

just pretend you never read that paragraph in that book, please. if that author didn't clarify the statement regarding 'text mode', then he really doesn't have much credibility in my opinion.

the alternate installer is what you need.

[Cityscape]

Great. Thanks for the info.

I'll get the alternate install CD as soon as I can (because it's a large file and I have restricted internet).