PDA

View Full Version : [SOLVED] which *buntu for an old AMD XP 2400+ ?



Jabra91
November 25th, 2011, 05:53 PM
Hi,
I want to install ubuntu on my old AMD Athlon XP 2400+. It has 1,25 GB RAM and NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700LE graphic card. It's going to be a server for lamp (for private use only), a file Server and maybe some game-server like minecraft. But I want a desktop environment.

I tried it with Ubuntu 10.04 but it was too slow for me. So now I want to know which *buntu will run fast on it an would it be better to take an older version instead of 11.10 ? Would be helpful to change the window manager for example install xubuntu and install openbox or something else?

It would be great if you could list some pros of the *buntu you recommend.

Thanks.

BC59
November 25th, 2011, 06:06 PM
Xubuntu has the fame to be very lightweight.

The Minimum system requirements are 256 MB RAM but it is strongly recommended to have at least 512 MB RAM.

Jabra91
November 25th, 2011, 06:18 PM
Xubuntu has the fame to be very lightweight.

The Minimum system requirements are 256 MB RAM but it is strongly recommended to have at least 512 MB RAM.

Is xubuntu really the fastest? isn't lubuntu faster?

BC59
November 25th, 2011, 06:29 PM
Well I'm not sure because the differences are minimal, but there are more options, if you like to have a really lightweight system.

For example you could try PuppyLinux which is using binaries and software from other Linux flavors and basically Ubuntu.

Jabra91
November 25th, 2011, 06:43 PM
hm, ok. But I wan't to use Ubuntu, because I made a good experience with it and I want an easy an stable distro. I don't want to spend to much time for the setup. I'm using arch on my laptop and know how difficult it can be.

So if there is no big difference between Xubuntu and Lubuntu, I'll try Xubuntu first. But how about the version? Is it better to use an older LTS or use the newest version for good support of old hardware?

BC59
November 25th, 2011, 06:52 PM
Well there is a big debate.

Many have the opinion that LTS versions are more stable, others they say LTS versions are abandoned and the developers are concentrated on the new ones and so on.

I'm using Ubuntu 11.10 which is the basis for the *ubuntu 11.10 and I find it pretty stable. Personally I would recommend the newest version, but surely there are many different opinions.

snowpine
November 25th, 2011, 06:55 PM
For best performance I recommend installing Ubuntu Server with no GUI desktop environment. It is not as hard as you might think, if you follow a good how-to. :)

https://help.ubuntu.com/10.04/serverguide/C/index.html

Jabra91
November 25th, 2011, 07:09 PM
For best performance I recommend installing Ubuntu Server with no GUI desktop environment. It is not as hard as you might think, if you follow a good how-to. :)

https://help.ubuntu.com/10.04/serverguide/C/index.html

hm, this sounds good. honestly I don't need a gui. And this would solve my problem of the version too. Because one thing I didn't like about using the newest version, is that there are changes in the desktop environment between the versions. Maybe I should give it a try.

But if I don't have a gui, I would loose everything about ubuntu that I liked. So I could use another distro instead. Or are there any pros of the Ubuntu Server? Would it make a difference if I take Arch for example?

Giveingitago
November 25th, 2011, 08:06 PM
Hi,
I've just installed Xubuntu 11.10 on my Desktop (AMD 3200, 2 gig ram,) and my Netbook (Lenovo S10e, N270 1.6 GHz 1 gig ram) its really light weight and runs well on both. After trying Ubuntu 11.10 Unity and Gnome 3, my recommendation is Xubuntu.

http://www.xubuntu.org/

viperdvman
November 25th, 2011, 08:15 PM
if you're running 1GB of RAM and an Athlon XP 2400+, then just regular Ubuntu (preferably the 10.04 LTS) will work on it. Of course, Xubuntu and Lubuntu (older or newer versions) will work on it too. The LTS with the older GNOME 2.30 only requires about 384GB RAM to run the desktop version, so you should do just fine with 1GB. Granted, it's an older Athlon XP/Pentium 4 era computer, but those computers with the right graphics card are still Windows Vista/7 capable, so they'll run Ubuntu.

Bottom line: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS should run just fine on your older Athlon XP. If you're iffy about it, then go with Xubuntu or Lubuntu.

snowpine
November 25th, 2011, 08:30 PM
hm, this sounds good. honestly I don't need a gui. And this would solve my problem of the version too. Because one thing I didn't like about using the newest version, is that there are changes in the desktop environment between the versions. Maybe I should give it a try.

But if I don't have a gui, I would loose everything about ubuntu that I liked. So I could use another distro instead. Or are there any pros of the Ubuntu Server? Would it make a difference if I take Arch for example?

Ubuntu LTS makes a nice server distro because 1) it is based on Debian, which recently won a poll as best server distro of 2011; and 2) it has 5 years of support (April 2015 for 10.04).

With Arch you'd need to learn a whole new set of tools, like pacman instead of apt, and you'd have a "rolling release" with no stability or long-term support.

BobMarleyy
November 25th, 2011, 11:26 PM
I tried it with Ubuntu 10.04 but it was too slow for me.
When I used Ubuntu 10.04 it was running fine for me. However, Ubuntu 11.10 was pretty slow on my computer which is, just as yours, pretty old. Currently I am using Xubuntu 11.10, because it is fast and highly configurable, but with a desktop in the style of old gnome (2.x). I prefer Xubuntu over Lubuntu, because Xubuntu is prettier :D Anyway I wish you good luck and please let us know what *buntu you will use.

Cheers,
Bob

Paddy Landau
November 25th, 2011, 11:34 PM
Lubuntu is without question lighter and faster than Xubuntu.

However, with your specs you may find little difference, in which case use whichever of the two you prefer.

Try them both with a Live CD and you will soon find which works best for you. The latest versions will be fine.

Jabra91
November 28th, 2011, 04:25 PM
thanks for your replies. I installed Ubuntu-Server 10.04 and try it now without a GUI :neutral: (never thought about that before - thanks snowpine) but it works fine. just some trouble with mounting a truecrypt volume via samba, but this will be the topic of another thread ;-)

so, thank you very much. problem solved

mrgs
November 28th, 2011, 04:31 PM
Good, then please mark the thread so using Thread Tools.

Paddy Landau
November 28th, 2011, 04:32 PM
thanks for your replies. I installed Ubuntu-Server 10.04 and try it now without a GUI :neutral: (never thought about that before - thanks snowpine) but it works fine. just some trouble with mounting a truecrypt volume via samba, but this will be the topic of another thread ;-)

so, thank you very much. problem solved
Excellent. Please mark the thread as solved (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnansweredPostsTeam/SolvedThreads) to help others with the same problem.