PDA

View Full Version : Advice on choosing between distros for my (kinda) old laptop



U-Ren
May 15th, 2011, 12:41 PM
Hi there guys! I'd like your suggestions on this.

I have this Compaq-HP laptop, 1.6 Ghz, 512 RAM, 40 Gb HDD, on board Intel graphic card, 5 years old. I've tried on it several OS, Windows XP (it works fast for the first two weeks, lol), Mandriva on KDE and Gnome (worked slow on Gnome, didn't work in KDE) and lately Xubuntu 10.10. I'm not happy at all with Xubuntu as it's way too slow for what it offers.

Now I want to upgrade and I'm torn between going for Xubuntu 11.04 or trying Lubuntu or just, idk, Ubuntu or maybe other distros. What do you guys think? Since my laptop is not that old, I'd wish for a distro which is fast but not that simple.
Thanks~

mips
May 15th, 2011, 02:46 PM
Try Lubuntu, Cruncbag, Archbang, Linux Mint LXDE etc as they will run fine on those specs you have. You can also go with lighter distros than the above if you want.

By adding another 1GB ram to that laptop you can make it a lot more responsive and ram is cheap. My laptop has even worse specs but has 1.25GB ram and any distro running lxde or openbox is way fast on it.

U-Ren
May 15th, 2011, 04:47 PM
Just installed Lubuntu 11.04 and it is faster than Xubuntu but hell a lot unstable. I'm afraid to play with it because it crashes right away. Is it supposed to be normal because it's the new release? Or not? Because my Ubuntu 11.04 in the desktop works flawlessly.
Can anyone tell me which LXDE distro is the best in terms of stability, since I'm really digging the speed~

I've always wanted to add RAM but somehow postponed it and now I don't think I can find RAM available anymore where I live.

Artificial Intelligence
May 15th, 2011, 06:47 PM
Moved to Other OS/Distro Talk.

Version Dependency
May 15th, 2011, 07:37 PM
I always recommend Lubuntu (http://lubuntu.net/) on older machines.

If you are cool with openbox, then Crunchbang (http://crunchbanglinux.org/), Archbang (http://archbang.org/), and Madbox (http://madbox.tuxfamily.org/) (based on Ubuntu) are nice as well.

ojdon
May 15th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Echoing the Lubuntu suggestion, I have a laptop with pretty similar specs and it's really fast on there. It'll keep your machine fresh and fast!

NormanFLinux
May 15th, 2011, 11:25 PM
Swift Linux. It has 256 MB and screams. With 512 RAM, I believe its a good choice. Based off MEPIS AntiX with the RoxDesktop.

boydrice
May 16th, 2011, 02:19 AM
Any of the DIY distros will be a good choice for an older machine: Slackware, Debian LXDE/Xfce/net-install, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Archlinux, and CRUX.

For some of the smaller distros: Vector Linux, Absolute Linux, Zenwalk, PCLinuxOS LXDE, AntiX, Salix, and SliTaz.

NormanFLinux
May 16th, 2011, 02:48 AM
Get a bigger hard drive. 40 GB is too small. 80 GB should be the minimum and you certainly get 250 GB and you'll never fill it up completely!

U-Ren
May 16th, 2011, 10:11 AM
Thank you for the replies. I checked out some of the suggestions given but in the end I decided to go with Lubuntu. If Lubuntu is still a bit crappy, I can't even imagine what kind of problems smaller distros would have as they have even smaller attention.
(anyone tried the LXDE spin of Fedora? it looks pretty :))

Kivech
May 16th, 2011, 02:51 PM
I'm giving Slackware a go. It was the first distro I ever tried, and I recon it is time to go back to something a bit more technical.

For me Ubuntu is taking a turn for the worse. I don't really understand what they want to accomplish. After the whole KDE 4 debacle they should have known that this was coming.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. But I really need something that works properly, reliable and fast most of all. Ubuntu in this case doesn't meet any of those requirements as far as I am concerned.

I think they should drop the whole 'looks' fetish, aka Vista. It's functionality, stability and reliability (might I add compatibility as well...) that count. Looks are always secondary.
After all, what good is a pretty looking OS if it doesn't work properly.

And no, buying new hardware is a bit Micro$oft style. There are plenty of people who cannot fork out $50 to buy whatever component they need. Some people forget that for some, Linux as a free alternative to Windows or Mac, is the main reason they got a computer still running in the first place.

Sure, it is fine to take advantage of new hardware capabilities, but to exclude those that cannot afford that ride, is downright stupid if you ask me.

Anyway, maybe in a few years I'll give Ubuntu another try, but for now I'm fine with a different distro. As long as it works. Eye candy, for me, is definitely not the reason to pick a distro.

mips
May 16th, 2011, 10:24 PM
I've always wanted to add RAM but somehow postponed it and now I don't think I can find RAM available anymore where I live.

Where would that be?

I can still find DDR1 here where I am.

Allavona
May 17th, 2011, 06:37 AM
Old machines: AntiX. There is none better.

U-Ren
May 17th, 2011, 05:49 PM
I'm giving Slackware a go. It was the first distro I ever tried, and I recon it is time to go back to something a bit more technical.

For me Ubuntu is taking a turn for the worse. I don't really understand what they want to accomplish. After the whole KDE 4 debacle they should have known that this was coming.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. But I really need something that works properly, reliable and fast most of all. Ubuntu in this case doesn't meet any of those requirements as far as I am concerned.

I think they should drop the whole 'looks' fetish, aka Vista. It's functionality, stability and reliability (might I add compatibility as well...) that count. Looks are always secondary.
After all, what good is a pretty looking OS if it doesn't work properly.

And no, buying new hardware is a bit Micro$oft style. There are plenty of people who cannot fork out $50 to buy whatever component they need. Some people forget that for some, Linux as a free alternative to Windows or Mac, is the main reason they got a computer still running in the first place.

Sure, it is fine to take advantage of new hardware capabilities, but to exclude those that cannot afford that ride, is downright stupid if you ask me.

Anyway, maybe in a few years I'll give Ubuntu another try, but for now I'm fine with a different distro. As long as it works. Eye candy, for me, is definitely not the reason to pick a distro.

I can't say I don't understand your point and I often find myself pretty worked up with new features which slow down my machine. One reason why I picked Linux (among many other reasons) is to be able to use my computer for at least 5 years. With Windows, I had the need to update hardware every 2-3 years.

On the other hand, I adore eyecandy. I- want my OS to look at least a bit nice on the eye. KDE 4, Gnome 3 and Unity are maybe a bit to much for my Desktop but it's not like they're shoving it up our throat. We could still keep 10.10 or disable Unity.
Everyone (aka ex-Windows users who have no idea what Linux is) adores eyecandy, so it's clear imo that what they want to accomplish is more people.

On the other hand, I have to disagree to the 'not stable' part. For what I've tried in my computers, Ubuntu has been the best. Sorry, but I don't want to install an OS just to spend the first 2 weeks to fix all the things that don't work out of the box or start to learn how to code when I have work to do.

U-Ren
May 17th, 2011, 05:53 PM
Where would that be?

I can still find DDR1 here where I am.

Lol, I sound like I'm living on the Moon, but it's the truth. Albania actually, and in the end, I managed to order RAM from the place I bought the laptop.