PDA

View Full Version : [ubuntu] Live vs alternate install cd



DonCoryon
May 1st, 2008, 09:44 PM
I love vs titles so I am going with it. I have a back story for my discussion.

I have Compaq Presario 900us, with a ATI mobilty u1 video card. I installed 8.04 live cd on the computer. There were some problems so I decided to download some other distros and see if any ran better on my crappy Compaq.

Notes by distro:


Ubuntu: no splash screen, 8 min boot time, no desktop effects, fairly slow, even web browsing from link to link.
OpenSUSE: everything ran perfect, desktop effects worked (cube, transparent windows, etc.), but the sound didn't work. It did but the volume at full was so low I had to put my ear to the computer to hear it.
PClinuxOS: only problem was that the display was choppy. The choppy display is the video card because a fresh install of XP does the same thing. But I download the ATI drivers and this is cleared. I couldn't find PCLinuxOS ATI drivers.


So each distro has it's problems. But all in all Ubuntu seemed to be the lesser of all evils.

I have a emachines t1100 with only 128mb ram so I downloaded the alternate cd and installed it. When I was going to do my laptop I grabbed the alternate CD and used that for the install.

Difference: splash screen works, regular less than a minute boot time. Desktop effects still don't work. It runs a fast as my desktop Compaq computer that has same amount of memory with a slightly faster CPU speed.

So the results after installing from the alternate cd was 100% improvement over the live cd installation.

teaker1s
May 2nd, 2008, 10:39 PM
alternate cd contains more drivers, for 3d effects you will need a binary only restricted driver:guitar:

AldenIsZen
May 9th, 2008, 02:18 PM
alternate cd contains more drivers..

Is that right? I assume the DVD has the same things as the Alternate CD? My father doesn't have internet.. and I am sending him the DVD right now anyhow. I might just use the DVD myself in the future if this is the case.