PDA

View Full Version : New vs. Old hardware



cessanfrancisco
December 16th, 2013, 06:20 PM
I was looking at some computers on the System76 website a couple of days, and I really liked what I saw. They have some sweet looking machines, for a price that is isn't entirely unreasonable (considering what you get and who you're supporting). But it got me thinking...

For me at least, despite the pure awesome-ness of owning a System76 computer, it is eclipsed by something else deeper within me. One of the things that drew me to Linux, and to ultimately grow into a Linux Enthusiast, was the ability that Linux has to breathe new life into older machines. I'm not a tree-hugging eco-warrior but I am a firm advocate of reducing waste and one's carbon footprint, as much as possible, especially in light of the planet's dwindling resources, space, environment, economy and exploding human population. Having said that, I really take great pride in tinkering away with a slightly older machine and bringing it as close to current specs as possible. It gives me great satisfaction to know there is one less computer sitting in a mile-high, third world garbage heap, and perhaps a few less dollars in the pockets of an Asian slave labor factory.

Now don't get me wrong I still appreciate, and salivate over, those shiny new System76 machines.

Does anyone else empathize?

mörgæs
December 16th, 2013, 06:33 PM
Yes! New software on old hardware.
It's fun to tinker with and it saves money.

1clue
December 16th, 2013, 07:12 PM
Depends on your situation.

I haven't acquired an old machine with some other OS on it and installed linux on it since ... whenever a p6 came out. I typically buy components and build something.

If you're setting up a server for a real business purpose, it make almost no sense to buy old hardware unless it's an auction for a company that just got dissolved. Usually anything you buy used is past whatever expected lifespan the system had, which means it could fail at any moment. I've had bad luck transporting old hardware, it seems that just moving it can cause a failure.

That said, for my recreational and workstation type machines, I'll re-install on the same box dozens of times in its lifespan. I bought it new (as components) and play till it breaks or until it no longer has enough "go" to do anything I want to do.

Dragonbite
December 16th, 2013, 07:53 PM
I've really liked the ability to (legally) install Linux on any hardware I get.

I bought my wife a laptop a couple of years ago, but that was with what she needed (Window). Before that, the only computer I have bought (new) was in 2000!

All of my other computers have been "toss-aways", usually from some corporation that has since replaced the computers for its employees.

My current laptop is 9+ years old: an IBM Thinkpad, not Lenovo which bought IBM's PC product line 2003 or 2004.

The family desktop is from the most recent company raffle, a core 2 duo running Ubuntu 12.04.

Other than that, I have a number of P4s in the house. I had to get rid of my P3s because they took up too much space.

germanix
December 16th, 2013, 08:04 PM
I use my 9 years old Sony Viao (1,6 Ghz single core with 2 gigs of ram) running Xubuntu 12.04 daily at work. Does everything I need and quite fast. At home I use my brand new lenovo Thinkpad X230 (i7 cpu 2,9 Ghz, 16 gigs of ram and very fast Samsung 840 pro SSd) running Ubuntu 13.10. Did not realy need the new machine but my old Sony will not run the newest software (not supported by the cpu) and anyway I figured after 9 years I deserve a new laptop. I could not bear to part with the Sony so I kept it as my "taking to work machine". It still serves me well. Nothing wrong with using old machines. Same holds true for my cars. My Toyota Celica is 21 years old and my Honda Accord is 17 years old and both are rust and trouble free. And hey, I am 62 and also rust and trouble free. So old does not have to mean "not usable" anymore.

ajgreeny
December 16th, 2013, 09:21 PM
Until earlier this year I was sure I would stick with my old AMD Sempron 2400+ with (upgraded) 2GB of ram from 2005 or 2006, which had been running gnome ubuntu 10.04 brilliantly, but when 10.04 lost support I installed Xubuntu 12.04, which also ran brilliantly. Then suddenly the mobo went pop and the machine would not even get to the BIOS screen. Time for a replacement!

I now run a very quick (by my standards) i5-3570K with 8GB ram, but having got very used to Xubuntu, I have now stuck with Xubuntu 12.04 64bit. It runs like a dream on this hardware, but I admit I am not certain it is would have been worth paying the price of the new machine if the old one had not done the dirty on me. The speed is now great on the new machine, but it never seemed to me that the old one was slow, and I'm sure I would have carried on with that old one if it had continued to work.

CharlesA
December 16th, 2013, 10:21 PM
I really should resurrect my old netbook that was running Win7 on and throw Fedora on it and see what happens.

The last time I tried that, wifi didn't work. :(

1clue
December 16th, 2013, 10:43 PM
...I now run a very quick (by my standards) i5-3570K with 8GB ram...

Now see that's the heart of it. Is old hardware good enough for what you do?

I'm running a laptop that's very close to this right now, and I'm cramped beyond belief. It won't upgrade past 8g and I need more. I have several VMs running simultaneously, plus a development environment. It's just not enough. The only thing it has going for it is a 17" monitor.

I'm looking at replacements, and frankly new laptops aren't that much better IMO. Somebody decided that laptops don't need kick-@$$ processors or big screens. I need 16g RAM pretty much right away, and refuse to buy something that can't be upgraded to 32. And I want two to four big monitors.

I think I'm going to get some sort of a small desktop next and lug it. Sandwich a couple 1080p screens together, throw it in a suitcase and drag that around. I don't actually take it anywhere very often and almost never use it while moving.

I'll continue to use the laptop, but it won't be my main workstation anymore.

I'll acknowledge that my scenario is uncommon, but frankly I just can't see where used equipment will do it for me. It's been that way for a lot of years.

I know and appreciate that most people don't use computers for their jobs, and if they do, then most people could get by with an atom processor. My wife has something pretty mainstream, and she's happy with it. These people can have used hardware and not see any problems. I started Linux with used hardware, and used it for quite a few years. I still regularly scrape off systems and re-install Linux on them, it's just that these systems never had a previous owner, and they never had Windows.

MartyBuntu
December 17th, 2013, 02:36 AM
If people keep pushing the line "runs great on older hardware!", then that's where Linux will remain...as a hobby OS that's relegated to "tinkering".

Linux (and Ubuntu specifally) needs to be presented as the only OS you need on your brand-spanking-new 8-core, 32GB RAM monster.


I'm all for dual-booting, VM's, persistant USB installs, but until you commit to a dedicated Ubuntu workstation on your latest-and-greatest, you're only casting Microsoft and Apple products as the standard to which you should strive to replicate.

CharlesA
December 17th, 2013, 03:24 AM
I run Debian on my server (i7, 16GB RAM) and VPSes, does that count? :p

I could probably run Ubuntu, but I wanted OpenVZ support.

Dragonbite
December 17th, 2013, 04:15 AM
If people keep pushing the line "runs great on older hardware!", then that's where Linux will remain...as a hobby OS that's relegated to "tinkering".

Linux (and Ubuntu specifally) needs to be presented as the only OS you need on your brand-spanking-new 8-core, 32GB RAM monster.


I'm all for dual-booting, VM's, persistant USB installs, but until you commit to a dedicated Ubuntu workstation on your latest-and-greatest, you're only casting Microsoft and Apple products as the standard to which you should strive to replicate.

Gimme a brand-spanking new computer and I'll put Linux on it! Otherwise, I am a cheap bastard and since I can do what I want on my computers (Linux and Win 7 on the 9 year old system!) I see little need to plunk down a chunk of change just because it's "new"(er).

1clue
December 17th, 2013, 04:27 AM
If people keep pushing the line "runs great on older hardware!", then that's where Linux will remain...as a hobby OS that's relegated to "tinkering".

Linux (and Ubuntu specifally) needs to be presented as the only OS you need on your brand-spanking-new 8-core, 32GB RAM monster.


I'm all for dual-booting, VM's, persistant USB installs, but until you commit to a dedicated Ubuntu workstation on your latest-and-greatest, you're only casting Microsoft and Apple products as the standard to which you should strive to replicate.

While I agree with the first part of this post about old hardware, I have to wonder; If you're not making heavy use of virtualization then how are you gonna use 32G?

From my perspective, I use those VMs either to isolate services (another Linux image on the VM) or use it to test apps I write for customers who use Windows. If the customer requires that an app works on a certain version of Windows and a certain browser, the only way you can be sure it actually works is to run it on that OS and that browser.

DuckHook
December 17th, 2013, 04:47 AM
Everybody's use-case is so different. I'm an old-hardware hound. Perhaps also an old hardware-hound. Maybe they're synonymous.

I was attracted to fiddling with the old stuff for a reason related to cessanfrancisco's but also somewhat different: I still remember when tight efficient code was an end in itself. It signified a professionalism and pride of workmanship that has been largely superceded by the demands of the modern proprietary software vendor where quantity of output delivered on short deadline is the absolute measure of value and success. A couple of programmer friends who work for those aforementioned vendors tell me that one of the reasons that Linux is such a good OS is that it still cares enough to "do it right". Well, by and large it does. Nothing's perfect. But Linux certainly gets much much closer to this ideal than a certain software entity that shall remain nameless. So, installing Linux and seeing it revitalize a machine that is only considered "old" because of a cynical campaign by an industry that foists such obsolescence upon us, is my way of saluting the practitioners of those ideals of old, and also, frankly, my way of giving a metaphorical finger to the rent-seeking interests who want to keep us forever chained to the upgrade hamster wheel.

Tinkering with old boxes is not for everybody. I've got the time to treat it as a hobby. I must confess to also running a brand spanking new box that is absurdly overpowered for the work that I task it with. But though friends and family are wowed by the multi-monitor multi-threaded fully-decked-out monster, it always feels to me as if it's lacking something. It's the old boxes that I bring back to life of which I'm most proud. They seem to have a character and class that's somehow missing from the sleek, LED-lined, water-cooled towers that still end up all looking the same.

Inane ramblings of a sentimental old fool.

CharlesA
December 17th, 2013, 05:42 AM
While I agree with the first part of this post about old hardware, I have to wonder; If you're not making heavy use of virtualization then how are you gonna use 32G?

From my perspective, I use those VMs either to isolate services (another Linux image on the VM) or use it to test apps I write for customers who use Windows. If the customer requires that an app works on a certain version of Windows and a certain browser, the only way you can be sure it actually works is to run it on that OS and that browser.

That's what I use my server for. Well that and file storage/media storage.

Web development too!

lykwydchykyn
December 17th, 2013, 06:20 AM
I've described myself before as "the Fred Sanford of computers". I don't own a machine that's less than 6 years old, and most were either given to me by people who thought they were too old to be of any use, built from spare parts, or bought for well under $100. I've got machines 10+ years old still chugging away doing useful things.

I just don't get excited about the new hardware like I once did. Sometime a few years back hardware got capable of doing everything I needed it to do, and as long as I can rev up every couple of years, I don't mind staying 4-8 years behind.

Now, at work, this is different. I'm kinda jazzed about my new laptop with an i5 and and SSD -- finally I can run multiple VMs without the OS choking. Even there, though, I'm the guy who likes to find cool uses for old gear that's been put out to pasture.

lykwydchykyn
December 17th, 2013, 06:28 AM
If people keep pushing the line "runs great on older hardware!", then that's where Linux will remain...as a hobby OS that's relegated to "tinkering".


People get enthusiastic about this stuff for different reasons; we aren't all in this for world domination. Linux would not be nearly as interesting to me if I couldn't run it on PC's that Windows left out to die.

PS -- "hobby OS"? I'm pretty sure we left that behind a few years ago, maybe somewhere between powering Google, the NYSE and the International Space Station.

coldraven
December 17th, 2013, 06:50 AM
My laptop is five years old but has a lovely matte screen. I just don't understand why almost every new laptop has a glossy screen.
I think that I'll buy another one on eBay for spares but I might build a high power tower that can handle video editing.
FYI my laptop is a HP Compaq 6715b, dual core, 2GHz, 4GB memory

CharlesA
December 17th, 2013, 07:49 AM
My laptop is five years old but has a lovely matte screen. I just don't understand why almost every new laptop has a glossy screen.

Seriously. How can you read a glossy screen outside?

On another note, the laptop I was "given" at work is a single core AMD with 1GB of RAM that chugs like hell in Windows (even with nothing running). I think the machine is about 6-8 years old cuz it had XP stickers all over it. I haven't tried installing *nix on it because 99% of the stuff I use at work is Windows only, so I'd have to run a VM inside Linux, and I have no idea how well that would work with only 1GB of RAM. Fun times.

DuckHook
December 17th, 2013, 07:58 AM
People get enthusiastic about this stuff for different reasons; we aren't all in this for world domination. Linux would not be nearly as interesting to me if I couldn't run it on PC's that Windows left out to die.++++++++1
..."hobby OS"? I'm pretty sure we left that behind a few years ago, maybe somewhere between powering Google, the NYSE and the International Space Station....or 482 of the world's top 500 supercomputers (http://www.top500.org/) including every single one of the top 10. Unix powers 12. Windows? ...2. Likely MS-subsidized white elephants so they wouldn't be left off the list.

mips
December 17th, 2013, 04:27 PM
On another note, the laptop I was "given" at work is a single core AMD with 1GB of RAM that chugs like hell in Windows (even with nothing running). I think the machine is about 6-8 years old cuz it had XP stickers all over it. I haven't tried installing *nix on it because 99% of the stuff I use at work is Windows only, so I'd have to run a VM inside Linux, and I have no idea how well that would work with only 1GB of RAM. Fun times.

In all honesty XP would probably fare better than most modern linux distros on older laptops if you have a fresh install of XP. Some lightweight linux disros that use openbox etc are also good. I personally think that the linux kernel has become pretty bloated for older hardware. I 'think' the likes of Puppy etc uses a lighter version of the kernel and that's why they are so fast. Maybe a custom kernel would be a good idea to try. Talking about kernels this is why I like micro-kernels, I know there are pros & cons but I think those cons could be sorted out to a large degree.

As for running linux in a VM on so little hardware I would not advise it, rather just install something like cygwin if you want some linux features.

I need to try out dragonfly bsd as it seems to be a hybrid between monolithic & micro.

CharlesA
December 17th, 2013, 06:48 PM
The joke's on me because they decided to install Win7 on it before giving it to me. I think it would have handled XP fine, but it's having all sorts of issues with sluggishness when switch between programs or even launching a browser with outlook open.

I figure it moved everything to virtual memory which causes the slow down. Hurray for a "Tech" company not having newer equipment.

DuckHook
December 17th, 2013, 06:54 PM
Maybe a custom kernel would be a good idea to try. Talking about kernels this is why I like micro-kernels, I know there are pros & cons but I think those cons could be sorted out to a large degree.There are drawbacks to a monolithic kernel for sure. The bloat you are referring to is an unavoidable consequence of the ballooning diversity of equipment over the passage of time. Linus and company have had to perform this really difficult three-part balancing act between adding more code to look after the latest stuff, being careful to trim only what's obsolete, and keeping the kernel size reasonable. And it's like: you only get to choose two, so kernel size suffers.

Conceptually, it's not hard to keep kernel bloat under control: Gentoo is tight, tiny and blazingly fast on old equipment, but this theoretical advantage is completely lost in the real world because a Gentoo install requires compiling your own kernel. This is simply not on the table for the average user. When I try Gentoo on really old equipment, I get it working less than a third of the time, after sweating for hours over really arcane kernel parameters and sometimes only after chasing down patches and obscure modules that are no longer supported. And then, the Gentoo update/upgrade process is like pulling teeth compared to the Debian approach. You really appreciate apt after trying to work with emerge (or maybe it's just my lack of familiarity with it).

An example of how bloated the kernel has become can be seen when comparing even the lightest modern distro—I would cite Tiny Core—to the kernel in my ancient first-generation HP Media Vault. TC takes up 40MB, which is already a size no mainstream distro can come close to touching. The Media Vault runs a Samba server, NFS server, USB, LPT, cron, NTP, a primitive web server, busybox with a decent selection of tools, and still has room to install ssh and rsync when hacked, and it does so on 64KB—that's K as in Kilo!

However, I can't agree with you re: XP. The original XP ran quickly on the old boxes, but by the time you get to SP3, and added the various versions of .NET (which most people had to do for apps they needed), and after what feels like a thousand security updates (which you absolutely MUST do), plus loading it up with AV, anti-blah-blah-blah (again, another absolute requirement), it became even more bloated and crufty than any modern distro, but with crappy security, crappy stability, crappy disk I/O, and crappy multitasking. In theory, a microkernel can have advantages over a monolithic one, but only if it is implemented well, and all Windows OSes are implemented like train wrecks. For actual stable productivity use, this old-hardware hound would choose DSL/Tiny Core/SliTaz over XP any day.

For a time, I kept expecting great things from HURD, but it seems to have slowed down to a dead stop these days. Anyone know what's happening?

Dragonbite
December 17th, 2013, 07:03 PM
The joke's on me because they decided to install Win7 on it before giving it to me. I think it would have handled XP fine, but it's having all sorts of issues with sluggishness when switch between programs or even launching a browser with outlook open.

I figure it moved everything to virtual memory which causes the slow down. Hurray for a "Tech" company not having newer equipment.

I have Win 7 on an old machine and it was a dog until I updated the graphic drivers. Now it is usable.

CharlesA
December 17th, 2013, 07:31 PM
I have Win 7 on an old machine and it was a dog until I updated the graphic drivers. Now it is usable.

Interesting.

I'm not even sure what video card that thing has. Can't hurt!

leeper69
December 17th, 2013, 07:43 PM
linux in one form or another will run on anything from a 8088 to the new amd and intel multicore processors and more.
I have a p3 laptop with 128 mb of memory which runs fine with puppy presise and a intel quad core with 4 gig on my desktop running xubuntu
ubuntu has come a long way and I now enjoy movies with xbmc live tv with kaffeine video editing with kdenlive better gaming etc.
I started out with redhat linux and moved on to mepis in 2000 and ubuntu in 2001 and have seen a vast inprovment
in linux over the past decade.

lykwydchykyn
December 17th, 2013, 10:09 PM
I started out with redhat linux and moved on to mepis in 2000 and ubuntu in 2001 and have seen a vast inprovment
in linux over the past decade.

Hear hear! though you might want to check your diary on those years. I don't think MEPIS or Ubuntu existed in 2001.

MartyBuntu
December 17th, 2013, 11:36 PM
You don't have to sell me on Linux. It's been my only OS since 2005 (Mandrake-->Kubuntu-->Ubuntu--Linux Mint).

I think it's brilliant that Linux takes to older hardware quite nicelly. I was speaking from the point of marketing Ubuntu to the masses who would consider Linux as an operating system that can handle modern, heavy system use tasks.

1clue
December 18th, 2013, 01:07 AM
Regarding kernels, it's not that incredibly difficult to compile the kernel to have support for only your hardware. Haven't tried it on Ubuntu variants yet, but have done so on almost every other distro I've used.

It doesn't matter how much source code is in the kernel. What matters is the size and complexity of the finished product. If you configure your own for your hardware and the basic features you need, you can make it small enough for most hardware.

The problem is figuring out what all those options are for, and which of them apply to you. That's where I get lost lately.

lykwydchykyn
December 18th, 2013, 05:13 PM
You don't have to sell me on Linux. It's been my only OS since 2005 (Mandrake-->Kubuntu-->Ubuntu--Linux Mint).

I think it's brilliant that Linux takes to older hardware quite nicelly. I was speaking from the point of marketing Ubuntu to the masses who would consider Linux as an operating system that can handle modern, heavy system use tasks.

Not really trying to sell you on Linux, just assuage your fears that it will be relegated to the back of the bus with AROS, Syllable, and MikeOS if Ubuntu fails to get traction with Aunt Tillie and PHB. Linux is pretty much entrenched as an enterprise-grade industrial-strength platform. Microsoft owns the desktop, and it may for some time yet; but Linux owns just about everything else.

DuckHook
December 19th, 2013, 04:09 AM
...it's not that incredibly difficult to compile the kernel...Actually, it is—or at least for new users it is. Of course, for those who have been around the block a few times, know how to query HW, are completely comfortable with the command line, and have even a rudimentary idea of how a kernel works, compiling is not out of the question, but for the general user fresh from Windows? You may as well ask them to assemble a working airplane.

It doesn't happen often, but when a forum member advises a new user in the Absolute Beginners forum to solve a problem by recompiling their kernel, I always wonder how tenuous a hold on reality such member has.

1clue
December 19th, 2013, 04:34 PM
Actually, it is—or at least for new users it is. Of course, for those who have been around the block a few times, know how to query HW, are completely comfortable with the command line, and have even a rudimentary idea of how a kernel works, compiling is not out of the question, but for the general user fresh from Windows? You may as well ask them to assemble a working airplane.

It doesn't happen often, but when a forum member advises a new user in the Absolute Beginners forum to solve a problem by recompiling their kernel, I always wonder how tenuous a hold on reality such member has.

I have a couple observations on that that may clarify my stance and the difference between that and what people have now.

This is the Cafe, so as far as my grip on reality...you still might be right but it's not because of the Absolute Beginners section thing.
When I got into this (meaning Linux), the hottest thing out there was 16 bits. The kernel was simpler then, graphics were so optional as to be rare, and Linux was ONLY for nerds. Redhat had not yet had its IPO and the world remained ignorant of Linux for quite some time.
When I got into this, there wasn't any such thing as lspci, and usb did not exist. To compile the kernel you took the cover off your box and looked at model numbers and/or the writing on your chips, and then looked on the documentation included on the floppies to figure out what it meant. You used the paper that came with your computer and your expansion cards to figure out details, because nobody had that information on a web site, if the company even HAD a web site.
That said, even though everything was rough it probably WAS simpler to compile the kernel, since there were much fewer options.
When you connected to the Internet, modems still made a squawking sound and most people I knew could tell what speed it connected on by the sound it made.
The only way to learn is to dive in.

DuckHook
December 20th, 2013, 12:55 AM
...so as far as my grip on reality...By no means was this directed at you. Didn't think you would take it that way because, as you say, it's the Cafe and we just play riffs off of whatever thoughts are thrown into the thread. Wasn't referring to you but to an approach among some (admittedly small subset of) power users who project their own expertise onto the average user, especially such a one coming from the cloistered world of Windows where there is absolutely no exposure to things like the guts of an OS. Most such neophytes do not even know that such a thing as a kernel exists, never mind what its function is or—even more obscure—that it can be manipulated/customized/optimized by being compiled.
...The only way to learn is to dive in......but only if ones objective is to learn. Most people just want it to work so they can get something done and then get onto other aspects of their lives. I happen to agree with your premise... if you want old HW (that MS has abandoned) to work with Linux, then you've got to make the effort to learn Linux—anything else is expecting something for nothing. Maybe the key is to warn new users that Linux is not, in fact, free; the payment is an investment in time and effort, not least directed to setting aside their old Windows habits. If this were made clear to people, I suspect that many of them would refrain from experimenting with Linux in the first place.

1clue
December 20th, 2013, 01:13 AM
By no means was this directed at you. Didn't think you would take it that way because, as you say, it's the Cafe and we just play riffs off of whatever thoughts are thrown into the thread. Wasn't referring to you but to an approach among some (admittedly small subset of) power users who project their own expertise onto the average user, especially such a one coming from the cloistered world of Windows where there is absolutely no exposure to things like the guts of an OS. Most such neophytes do not even know that such a thing as a kernel exists, never mind what its function is or—even more obscure—that it can be manipulated/customized/optimized by being compiled....but only if ones objective is to learn. Most people just want it to work so they can get something done and then get onto other aspects of their lives. I happen to agree with your premise... if you want old HW (that MS has abandoned) to work with Linux, then you've got to make the effort to learn Linux—anything else is expecting something for nothing. Maybe the key is to warn new users that Linux is not, in fact, free; the payment is an investment in time and effort, not least directed to setting aside their old Windows habits. If this were made clear to people, I suspect that many of them would refrain from experimenting with Linux in the first place.

Well, frankly I HAVE been that guy. And no offense taken or offered. One of the points I was making in my earlier post was that when I started this, EVERYONE compiled something, and sooner rather than later. Everyone came from Windows or Mac or Commodore or Atari, or whatever. None of those had visible development tools anywhere, let alone a reason to use them. Frankly Ubuntu is the first distro I can recall seeing where development wasn't focused on somewhere.

So I've been the guy in the Absolute Beginners section, and suggested compiling the kernel because the poster seemed to have it together and the situation seemed to call for it. And it's not always poorly received. You have to remember that Linux still has a nerdy flavor to it, the idea that you need to be a bit more technically oriented to use it. It's been a few years since a non-source-based distro required a kernel compile for normal use, but Ubuntu is the only distro I've used for any length of time but never compiled a kernel for, and I've used dozens of distros. OK so maybe add RHEL and CentOS to that.

And the objective doesn't have to be just education. If you want an advanced router you pretty much have to cook the build yourself IMO. If you want the kernel specific to your needs, or if you want bleeding edge hardware or old hardware. Keep in mind that a lot of Linux is used for enterprise or research. Almost all my installs are for business, most are straightforward simple server installs but not all of them fit into the mainstream definition. Or, to keep busy when you're bored, you can try to get it running on an old Sparc circa 1993 if you really, really want to.

I like the idea that Ubuntu and a few others are out there to fill the gap between commercial operating systems and experts-only distros, but I don't like the idea that Ubuntu seems to be focused on easy and leave-it-alone instead of getting hands dirty.

MartyBuntu
December 20th, 2013, 01:32 AM
..but only if ones objective is to learn. Most people just want it to work so they can get something done...

Oh, stick around, my friend.

Someone is likely to come along and explain to us that anyone not willing to investigate the function of a modprobe is either lazy or doesn't deserve to own a computer.

lykwydchykyn
December 20th, 2013, 06:07 AM
Oh, stick around, my friend.

Someone is likely to come along and explain to us that anyone not willing to investigate the function of a modprobe is either lazy or doesn't deserve to own a computer.

Nah, I think all those folks have been run off by now.

DuckHook
December 20th, 2013, 08:15 AM
So I've been the guy in the Absolute Beginners section, and suggested compiling the kernel because the poster seemed to have it together...So you're the culprit! :lolflag: Do you have any idea how many poor devils you've traumatized far beyond the reach of human aid? There are, right now, hundreds if not thousands of zombie penguins waddling around because you told them to compile a kernel. How could you? It's. All. Your. Fault.
...when you're bored, you can try to get it running on an old Sparc circa 1993 if you really, really want to....I really, really don't.](*,)
I like the idea that Ubuntu and a few others are out there to fill the gap between commercial operating systems and experts-only distros, but I don't like the idea that Ubuntu seems to be focused on easy and leave-it-alone instead of getting hands dirty.I take it you mean the progressively disappearing tools that used to be standard: like Synaptic, Seahorse, Users & Groups, etc. For my part I do feel badly for the developers who are damned-if-they-do/damned-if-they-don't. They can't satisfy everybody, and have chosen to make Ubuntu "safe" for the general user. I agree that this also makes it progressively more toothless for those who start off with some curiosity, but I suspect that the curious lurk on forums such as this one and ultimately learn how to install these tools on their own. Still, I get your point.

Oh, stick around, my friend.

Someone is likely to come along and explain to us that anyone not willing to investigate the function of a modprobe is either lazy or doesn't deserve to own a computer.The Ubuntu forums tend to be pretty kind and generous. I think all of the hard-core elements have self-selectively withdrawn to the Arch and Gentoo forums.

leeper69
January 29th, 2014, 06:58 PM
Hi I am wrong about the release dates of mepis and ubuntu in my previous post and after some reserch I have the proper dates mepis was first released in may of 2003 and the first release was called mepis 2000, in 2006 mepis used the ubuntu repositories insted of debian repositories for one release and this is the year I started using ubuntu.ubuntu started its first release in oct of 2004. thanks for alerting me of my mistake on the dates lykwydchykyw. I am sorry if i misled anyone with the info posted in my first post I do tend to get dates wrong.

zgornel
January 30th, 2014, 09:47 AM
The performance problems with linux on older hardware are mostly related to services and the window manager. A modern distribution, properly configured and a very light WM will do the trick for most older PCs (e.g. 1GHz, 512 Ram, slow hdd)...

linuxyogi
January 30th, 2014, 06:58 PM
I was using Xubuntu 12.04 on my old Celeron 2.13 with 384 MB of ram. Previously it had XP on it. I used to run it for long hours for torrenting. The only mistake that I made which I truly regret now is I didnt use a UPS for the machine. I think this reduced its life quite a bit. I assembled this one on 2007 and it worked till 2011.


My present hardware too is quite old now.

CPU: Dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+

Ram 2 GB

HDD 160 GB

The latest version of KDE was acting very unstable on this hardware. Gnome 3 runs better but for better performance I am running XFCE.

2 years after I assembled this PC I had added a Nvidia (9500GT) graphics card but after 3 years it wet bad.

The onboard Nvidia has no vdpau support but the CPU is powerful enough to play HD videos.

The only problem I am facing right now is the lack of ram. Coz of that I cant run VMs.

Hardware is very expensive in my country and surprisingly legacy hardware costs even more. In this case its DDR 2.


In roughly 2 years I will assemble a new PC and use this one for torrenting.

nomenkultur
January 30th, 2014, 08:26 PM
I really should resurrect my old netbook that was running Win7 on and throw Fedora on it and see what happens.

The last time I tried that, wifi didn't work. :(

forget fedora... if your netbook has an atom cpu try this:

http://forum.manjaro.org/index.php?topic=7319.0

wi fi should be working by now, I've had a bunch of hp minis and acers and toshibas and the newer kernels seem to function otb.


I always prefered desktops but my living situation right now doesn't allow me to have one, I have a 2008 acer laptop, works fine.

If you have nvidia or intel gfx you are probably golden, ati was a nightmare for me and the reason I sold my old hp.

next time a friend travels to the us I will probably ask for a new laptop but the 'made in china with complete disregard for environment by slavelabor' like someone said makes me extremely uncomfortable

CharlesA
January 30th, 2014, 11:57 PM
forget fedora... if your netbook has an atom cpu try this:

http://forum.manjaro.org/index.php?topic=7319.0

wi fi should be working by now, I've had a bunch of hp minis and acers and toshibas and the newer kernels seem to function otb.

Thanks! It was an Asus 1005HA (I think). Broadcom or Atheros wifi chip, and BackTrack 5 worked, but not Fedora.

*facepalm*

RichardET
January 31st, 2014, 03:48 AM
I have a free, lierally free Lenovo B590 , core i3, which came with 4 GB of RAM; I invested the $90 for the extra 4 GB and Ubuntu 13.xx and it really flies.

william14
February 5th, 2014, 04:18 AM
I like the idea of buying an older system and upgrading it to perform better than it did brand new. For instance, I bought an older Dell Latitude from 2009 and installed a bunch of memory and replaced the hard drive with an SSD. That computer now boots in less than 15 seconds. Furthermore, I made that happen for a fraction of the cost of a brand new computer. Now, I'm doing the same thing to this laptop I'm using to post this reply, which is an IBM ThinkPad T60p. I bought it on eBay for about $140 and I'm going to install an SSD for about $80-90 when I save up for it and then spend another $60 on 4GB of RAM. When that happens, I'll have a laptop that boots in a matter of seconds and it will perform well enough for just about anything I could want to do with it.

PrSdNt
February 5th, 2014, 09:55 AM
My plans were to stick with my old (10 yrs) desktop until I discovered I couldn't run unity in 3d with my AGP 128mb GPU. I read somewhere you need at least 512mb for that. I couldn't find a cheap second-hand 512mb AGP card in my vicinity (not paying more mail cost than the value of the card), so I decided to replace the entire box.