[SOLVED] Arch Linux for a really old computer

[fenT1]

Hello,

I reciently bought a HP Omnibook xe2 for $20!. Because the guy tried to install win xp on it and ruined his win 95 partition.
This bargain has 4.9 Gig HD 191 MB Ram, it currently has Gutsy installed and it runs a litlle slow but it gets by.I would like to know if Arch linux would deliver a better performance on it since it was recommended in an earlier thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=872910)

[tuxxy]

Have you thought about an xubuntu install as thats better suited to older hardware.

[blazercist]

arch + gnome would eliminate some unneeded overhead but not much, you should think about using a different WM, something light like xfce, *box, etc.

[ynnhoj]

what sort of processor does the machine have? if it's not i686, i guess you wouldn't stand to gain anything by running arch. even a trimmed down *buntu install running a lighter window manager ought to get the job done.

but if you're looking to try something new, arch is easy enough to get installed. a debian install would also be worth considering, particularly if you find that you prefer apt to pacman.

[mips]

Arch+Openbox or another light WM of your choice will run fine.

Look at Kmandlas blog for a list of good lightweight apps to go with it.

[morgan141]

what sort of processor does the machine have? if it's not i686, i guess you wouldn't stand to gain anything by running arch. even a trimmed down *buntu install running a lighter window manager ought to get the job done.

Unless I'm missing something, and I'm by no means an expert, if the processor isn't i686 then arch won't run on it at all. It is the equivalent of trying to run the x86_64 version on a 32bit processor. There was a project a little while back for i386 processors but I believe it is dead.

[cardinals_fan]

Have you thought about an xubuntu install as thats better suited to older hardware.
Eh? Arch is lighter than Xubuntu...

[Rumor]

As others have noted, so long as the processor is a Pentium II or better, you should be able to install Arch. I have it running on an old Dell PII/233 with 128 RAM laptop using fluxbox for the window manager. It's no racehorse, but is a perfectly usable machine.

[fenT1]

what sort of processor does the machine have? if it's not i686, i guess you wouldn't stand to gain anything by running arch. even a trimmed down *buntu install running a lighter window manager ought to get the job done.

but if you're looking to try something new, arch is easy enough to get installed. a debian install would also be worth considering, particularly if you find that you prefer apt to pacman.

Thank you all for your input. My processor is Pentium 2. And yes i'm looking for something new and in the thread link before it was recommended for computer science needs.

[mips]

http://translate.google.co.za/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/I686&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Di686%2Bwikipedia%26hl%3Den%26client%3 Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DFo8
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Arch_Linux_Install_Guide#Pre-Installation

[K.Mandla]

I reciently bought a HP Omnibook xe2 for $20!
Like this one?

http://www.ciao.co.uk/HP_OmniBook_XE2__17163

Lucky!

Have you thought about an xubuntu install as thats better suited to older hardware.
Blech. If it's a Pentium II, Xubuntu will probably mope along like a depressed teenager. Or at least, in my opinion it would. ... :roll:

arch + gnome would eliminate some unneeded overhead but not much, you should think about using a different WM, something light like xfce, *box, etc.
+1. Has anyone else noticed that Arch + Gnome is good, but once you put in the somewhat-required Gnome extras, you're back to sluggish again? Maybe it's just me. Maybe I need to eat less sugar. :shock:

[Rumor]

Has anyone else noticed that Arch + Gnome is good, but once you put in the somewhat-required Gnome extras, you're back to sluggish again? Maybe it's just me. Maybe I need to eat less sugar. :shock:

It might be interesting to see the difference in resource usage between vanilla Gnome and Gnome with the bells and whistles.

I have used Arch with Gnome+ on a pair of PII's, but they were "beefier" than the laptop in this thread. They were both running around 4-500 MHZ and had 512 RAM, so Gnome with the extras ran fine on them.

[ch_123]

As others have noted, so long as the processor is a Pentium II or better

I think its more like a Pentium Pro or better, then again, very few people would have a Pentium Pro PC, they were mainly used in servers due to their cost.

[MisfitI38]

Arch+LXDE is a good starting point.

[Calmatory]

Have you thought about an xubuntu install as thats better suited to older hardware.
Just to let people know: Actually, then ONLY difference I saw was the decreased memory usage when I went from Ubuntu to Xubuntu. Sure Xubuntu has lighter default apps, but afterall the machine felt just as slow with Xubuntu as it did with Ubuntu. Actually, Windows XP was faster. :)

333 MHz Celeron with 256MB of RAM.