OS for outdated PCs?

[oknos]

Hi there, i've got an old pc that the last time i used it was running on windows 95 and i'd like to start using it again for simple applications. which OS in your opinion would do the job? Its specifications are: 1.7GHz and 128MB of RAM.

[Zack McCool]

I would try to upgrade the RAM, if at all possible. RAM is cheap these days, and it will help a lot. But for a lightweight distro, I'd say either PuppyLinux, or DSL (DamnedSmallLinux). Both are built to be run on older equipment, but neither is quite the same as Ubuntu, though you'll make it through all right (they aren't THAT different ;)

If you can get over 512M, you should have no problem with a standard Ubuntu install.

[K.Mandla]

Hi there, i've got an old pc that the last time i used it was running on windows 95 and i'd like to start using it again for simple applications. which OS in your opinion would do the job? Its specifications are: 1.7GHz and 128MB of RAM.
1. You have a 1.7Ghz machine that ran Windows 95? That's unusual.

2. That's not an old computer, you know. 1.7Ghz is very speedy.

3. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=575456

[Rokurosv]

Slitaz (http://www.slitaz.org/en/), my favorite minimal distro

[Pogeymanz]

1. You have a 1.7Ghz machine that ran Windows 95? That's unusual.


My thoughts exactly...

[rick08]

I have an old pentium 3 computer that has about the same specs except with 256mb of ram running ubuntu 8.10 so I would personally try Ubuntu or DSL.

[mikjp]

Just about any distro will run on that modern computer. See also my blog from the signature line :-)

Add: http://lightlinux.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-old-is-old-computer.html

mikko

[tuxxy]

You could install many OS's but use a lighter desktop environment.

[FlashOmega]

Has anyone used xubuntu?... I was under the impression it was a minimal OS.

[glotz]

That's a nice, fast modern processor but very, very little memory! Strange setup!

I'm running Ubuntu standard install on 1.2GHz and 440 megs of RAM, works nicely.

[Joshuwa]

Zenwalk is a pretty light and speedy OS, based on Slackware and is really easy to install and use.

But as others have mentioned, you have a pretty decent system that will run even normal Ubuntu fine. A 1gb stick of ram is awful cheap these days, and could have you up and running without limiting yourself to a slimmed-down OS.

[gjoellee]

slitaz (http://www.slitaz.org/en/), my favorite minimal distro

+1

[jasontu]

I run Xubuntu on a 1Ghz machine with 256mb of RAM. A RAM upgrade would be nice if available. My dad loves his Xubuntu box. You should be able to do office work, websurfing, email all just fine on that machine running Xubuntu.

Heck, I've run Xubuntu on a 500mhz laptop with 256mb of RAM. I'm *sure* you can run it just fine.

The featherweight distros like DSL always turn out to be just a little bit too minimal for what I'm looking for.

If you're used to Ubuntu try Xubuntu for this machine.

[Dark Aspect]

If you want a speedy OS than you could run Puppy Linux, however I would just get more ram and install Ubuntu if the processor is 1.7 Ghz.

[cmay]

i fixed an old pc with 700 mzh and 512 mb ram and its one of the fastest ubuntu hardy setups i have had for a long time.
i have used cruinsh bang linux on a asus eee pc which has the processor specs yoou have but you need some more ram i think.

if debian etch from base install wiht jwm or icewm does not scare you of then try puppy or damn small linux. debian comes with a cd using xfce that i use on a 600 mzh and 300 mb ram computer whic i challenge all windows vista users with a standard computer like 2 gigahertz and 1054 to be faster than at any day.

i found that all hardware and operative systems can act different when i have fixed older computers. debian as example was kicking and screaming and yelling at me for trying to install it on the 700 mzh and 512 mb ram computer where as ubutn is blazing fast. on the ohter hand same debian install cd i used i have made rn amazing on 300 mzg and 128 mb ram.
point is that you should try some alternatives until you make up your mind. the pc i do not think is outdated. i ran minix 3 on a 100 mzh and 16 mb ram oldie wiht no ps2 mouse or any keyboard with ps2 . it was theold big plugs it used. and the networkcaqrd was a phone cable and something i did at first think was a tv card. apparently in the old days it was how just netcards looked like :)

[chrisinspace]

Has anyone used xubuntu?... I was under the impression it was a minimal OS.

Xubuntu is nice. I put it on an old laptop for my mom. You get most of functionality found in Ubuntu (Gnome), but better performance.

You may also want to try a distro that uses Enlightenment as its desktop environment. It's extremely light, but looks good (if that's a concern of yours).

I tried openGEU and it was pretty good. I've heard OzOS is excellent. They are both Ubuntu with E17 preinstalled and configured.

[cardinals_fan]

SliTaz or SLAX.

[w7kmc]

I run Ubuntu 8.10 on a Dell 667 Mhz with 320 MB. It runs OK as long as I stick to one task at a time. I can also listen to music as well, while surfing and writing which is about all I require on that box.

I used to run Xubuntu on this system. To be honest I did not notice much improvement in performance with Xubuntu. Everything ran about the same. The desktop menus were snappier, but the applications had about the same performance.

You can turn off some unneeded services to improve performance. In your case, I would defiantly upgrade the RAM.

[oldos2er]

Has anyone used xubuntu?... I was under the impression it was a minimal OS.

Xubuntu is the same as Kubuntu or Ubuntu (Gnome), but with xfce as desktop environment instead of KDE or Gnome. IMO there are many lighter distros you could use--Vector Linux Standard comes to mind.

[cardinals_fan]

Has anyone used xubuntu?... I was under the impression it was a minimal OS.
Not really. Xubuntu is very heavy for a Xfce distro, with lots of GNOME "contamination".

[Twitch6000]

Not really. Xubuntu is very heavy for a Xfce distro, with lots of GNOME "contamination".

+! to this.. I rather use crunchbang linux or build from a minimal ubuntu install and install xfce4.

Anyways I suggest DSL or Crunchbang Linux lite edition.

[zmjjmz]

I would suggest AntiX M7.5 or Vector Linux Light, they've both been great for me.

[blackened]

As has been mentioned already, that processor is really no slouch. I have an Athlon 2200+ (1.8 Ghz) with 1 Gb of RAM and it runs Ubuntu standard install just as well as my C2D T5750 with 2 Gb of RAM.

Upgrade your RAM and you should be good to run nearly any modern Linux distro.

[adamlau]

Ubuntu Minimal + XFCE, focusing on lightweight, self-compiled apps afterwards.

[samjh]

Put more RAM in, and Xubuntu should run fine.

The system configuration seems very odd. A 1.7GHz processor mated to only 128MB of RAM? Weird.

[barbedsaber]

puppy
Upgrade the RAM if you can, but either way, puppy is the way to go.

[Harii]

I read that puppy linux will use ubuntu debs soon.
Its not damn small ubuntu but its close to it!:popcorn:

[cardinals_fan]

I read that puppy linux will use ubuntu debs soon.
Its not damn small ubuntu but its close to it!:popcorn:
WHAT?!

I know that changes are in the works what with Barry Kauler stepping down and all, but is Puppy actually moving to an Ubuntu base?

[snowpine]

I read that puppy linux will use ubuntu debs soon.
Its not damn small ubuntu but its close to it!:popcorn:

Are you referring to Woof? http://puppylinux.com/blog/?viewCat=Woof

[JordyD]

Has anyone used xubuntu?... I was under the impression it was a minimal OS.

Yes, I'm running it on a laptop right now. I haven't really noticed any difference, though. I think it's because my computer just isn't old enough to be that slow. I probably could have installed just normal Ubuntu on it.

[doorknob60]

I'd try a Debian Netist+Openbox or Arch+Openbox. (I use Arch+Openbox, it's great even for modern systems, see my stats in sig). What's with the 1.7 Ghz and 95 though lol? My Windows 95 had 32 MB of RAM and a 300 Mhz CPU...

[coolbrook]

I agree with adding memory. I'm running Xubuntu on a Dual P-III, 700 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. It's running nicely.

[moster]

Why you suggesting that he upgrade memory? I think he knows that is best solution, but he cannot put cheap DDR2 in motherboard that can only use SDRAM :D

[stmiller]

Debian!

[mpsii]

Xubuntu is nice. I put it on an old laptop for my mom. You get most of functionality found in Ubuntu (Gnome), but better performance.

You may also want to try a distro that uses Enlightenment as its desktop environment. It's extremely light, but looks good (if that's a concern of yours).

I tried openGEU and it was pretty good. I've heard OzOS is excellent. They are both Ubuntu with E17 preinstalled and configured.

I just tried OZOS on a Toshiba 8100 (P3-600MHz with 384MB RAM and 8MB Savage video card). Ran smoothly and was VERY nice.

http://www.cafelinux.org/OzOs/

[Calmatory]

Having used old machines for 24/7 usage, I'd say that 1.7 GHz CPU is fast enough for any distro. However, it is true that the clock speed tells nothing, but at least it beats 416 MHz Celeron, which is still very usable, despite the age of 10 years.

OS for outdated PC? Either Windows 2000 or XP(both lighter than any *buntu, trust me. ;)) But if you want Linux, then take look at ArchLinux and Fluxbox.

The OS has small influence on the speed of the machine really, the biggest matter is the programs you run, Firefox won't be much faster on Win95 than it is on Vista. Same applies to all other programs aswell.

OS won't make the machine fast, or slow really. Bloatware and programs will.

Oh, and first task is to get 256 MB or more RAM, 128 MB will choke unless using programs from pre-2002. ;)

[Cope57]

#!CrunchBang Linux Screenshots (http://crunchbanglinux.org/wiki/screenshots)

Default screenshot
http://crunchbanglinux.org/wiki/_media/screenshots/crunchbang-linux-clean-desktop-8.10.01.png?w=450&h=&cache=cache

User submitted screenshots ---------------------------------
http://crunchbanglinux.org/wiki/_media/screenshots/crunchbang-by-hanna.jpg?w=450&h=&cache=cache

http://crunchbanglinux.org/wiki/_media/screenshots/crunchbang-by-sheri.jpg?w=450&h=&cache=cache

http://crunchbanglinux.org/wiki/_media/screenshots/crunchbang-by-fabsh.jpg?w=450&h=&cache=cache

My screenshot
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/3251/2009012312327241651280xyi8.th.png (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/3251/2009012312327241651280xyi8.png)

[brainac0cult]

kubuntu