View Full Version : Re: What distro would support my computer best (especially my graphics card)?

January 7th, 2011, 03:41 PM
Hi. I got quite old PC and I wonder witch distro will fit perfectly to this parameters :

AMD Sempron 2500+
Radeon x1050/9550 256MB

From a very long time I try to convince friend of my to change OS for Linux. Everytime I see how this Windows works on his PC's I get mad.

Friend's PC :

Pentium - something between 1,7-2 Ghz
GeForce MX400 64MB

He just using PC for music, movies and web browsing.

Thanks for any tips !!

January 7th, 2011, 04:24 PM
Thread hijacking and necromancy.

Post moved into its own thread :)

January 7th, 2011, 04:44 PM
I will post this here:

To be honest with any computer over 512mb of RAM, ANY distro will work. It is all what you want and what you are familiar with.

For 1gb of ram Ubuntu will run great, even if you have a weak CPU. Use the LTS edition (10.04) if you are newer to Ubuntu/Linux. Ubuntu by far offers the most packages and ease of use and install (my opinion). Other options for a PC with 1gb of RAM are:

Fedora (2nd best choice): http://fedoraproject.org/
OpenSUSE: http://www.opensuse.org/en/

If you want a distro for older hardware, or a responsive experience on faster hardware, try these:

Xubuntu: http://www.xubuntu.org/
Puppy Linux (very fast): http://puppylinux.org/main/Overview%...%20Started.htm
Mepis: http://www.mepis.org/

January 7th, 2011, 05:11 PM
In my limited experience I've found that 512mb was not enough RAM. 1GB made a significant difference. That was with a Celeron 2.5 Ghz system that I use as a test machine/Samba share. For that PC use 32bit Ubuntu, not 64 and you should be good to go!

January 7th, 2011, 06:51 PM
If I were you I'd have installed Lubuntu, which is light-weight and has almost same features as Ubuntu.

January 7th, 2011, 07:01 PM
Based on personal experience, for PCs with 256 and 512MB RAM I use Xubuntu, works like a charm. And I believe Xubuntu is far ahead Puppy and DSL, which I would only use for 128 or less. Lubuntu I would not recommend, had a lot of issues with 128 and what's the point using it on 256 when you got Xubuntu around. For more than 512mb, as Nightwishfan suggests, any distro would work so then it is a matter of distro choice.

January 7th, 2011, 07:28 PM
I'm currently running Natty (11.04) development version on a system, with a 2.66Ghz Celeron cpu and 512Mb ram, for surfing the web, playing movies, music and squashing bugs, it works quite well

January 7th, 2011, 07:41 PM
I just replaced a system quite similar to the O.P.'s except I had 1 Gb. RAM. It worked fine for everything except flash. That video card has no manufacturer support which may have been a factor but when playing flash clips from certain sites the CPU usage was 95%+ continuously while the video was playing. This was with various 32 bit desktop Ubuntu releases.

albert s
January 7th, 2011, 08:08 PM
I have a 1.6GHz (I think) single core celeron running ubuntu 10.04 quite happily on 512 ram, it was only 256 until very recently and it was fine for web browsing etc, even ok for watching movies on, and no separate GPU.
just as long as you only try and do one thing at a time,
saying that, listening to a CD and browsing was fine, but stored music made it lag a little,
still very usable though.
I would say 10.04 ubuntu as it is the easiest and most user friendly ubuntu I have used yet, Im a point and click sort of person. :)

January 9th, 2011, 12:49 PM
Can you tell me guys is there a big difference between xubuntu and lubuntu ??

January 9th, 2011, 01:47 PM
Instead of Ubuntu that is based on Gnome and Kubuntu that is based on KDE, the main difference between Xubuntu and Lubuntu is that Xubuntu is based on the XFCE desktop environment, whereas Lubuntu is based on LXDE. Both of them are light-weight environments for minimum memory consumption. My understanding is that LXDE is a bit lighter but seems to lack certain features. You have to try for yourself though and it is a subjective choice. My personal preference is Xubuntu with XFCE, I like it more and I find it more robust. Of course let's not forget that using a certain distribution in no way limits you to install and use any other desktop envirnoment, eg you can always install KDE under Xubuntu, it will just require more resources.

January 9th, 2011, 02:36 PM
AMD Sempron 2500+
Radeon x1050/9550 256MB

Standard Ubuntu should be okay. If you find it too heavy there is Xubuntu.

Pentium - something between 1,7-2 Ghz
GeForce MX400 64MB

Standard Ubuntu is probably too heavy (although you might get away with it). Xubuntu or Lubuntu would be a better option.

January 9th, 2011, 02:43 PM
Can you tell me guys is there a big difference between xubuntu and lubuntu ??

Lxde/Xfce. Ohh, and xubuntu isnt that much lighter than gnome ubuntu, lubuntu is.

I dotn like Lxde, so I never use it for any length of time (though I do install then load it up on occasion, just to have a look) but xubuntu is far to heavy for its stated use ('low-specification computers'). A minimal install + Xfce is a lot lighter then xubuntu, and is pretty close in resources used to Lubuntu.

*edit- looks like they have removed the 'low-specification computer' blurb from the xubuntu page.....about time.