Can't get any Ubuntu versions to work after Hardy

[GreyGeek]

Re: Can't get any Ubuntu versions to work after Hardy

Another distro which works well on older or underpowered machines is Puppy. Either the older, 4.3.1, version of their new Puppy 5.0 "Lucid" version. VERY fast.

[claydoh]

Re: Can't get any Ubuntu versions to work after Hardy

I run Kubuntu on 2 7 year old Compaq Evo laptops with Pentium 4-M 2.0 cpu's, one used to have only 512mb ram, and it ran out of ram space quickly. I got another 512mb added and it now runs very nicely, as long as I don't do more than one strenuous task at a time I can compile software ok without serious slowdowns, for example. But if I then try converting a video, well then it bogs down

I would seriously consider adding more ram if that is possible, it WILL make a difference imo.

[jonthomas]

Re: Can't get any Ubuntu versions to work after Hardy

thanks for the quick reply guys, i hadn't heard anything about Puppy before. I'll keep it in mind.

As regards upgrading memory, I agree that it would make a huge difference. One reason I havent is because it costs so much compared to a new pc.

eg £30 for 1gb of pc2700 ram. £80 for basic desktop computer inc. 1gb ram, £140 for Acer Revo 1gb single core.

The astonishing thing is how well my 7yr old Emachines 1.8Celeron runs XP with 384mb&84845GL graphics. but that was what it was built for

So i'll probably keep trying to squeeze as much out of it as I can, until I see a bargain or more likely system failiure.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Can't get any Ubuntu versions to work after Hardy

.....
The astonishing thing is how well my 7yr old Emachines 1.8Celeron runs XP with 384mb&84845GL graphics. but that was what it was built for
....

A few months ago I "refurbished" an eMachine with those specs, except that it showed only 298MB of RAM. It was running either XP or PCLOS, I can't remember which, but it was dog slow. Tried Jaunty on it. Still slllllloooooowwwww. Put Puppy 4.3.1 on it. F-----a-----s----t!

Everything in Puppy runs in RAM, which is why it is fast, but it doesn't have KDE4's mime power. But, after 3 or 4 months, the guy I set it up for tried the Kubuntu Lucid Lynx LiveCD, which was really slow on that machine, but he liked it so much he installed it! Lucid was such an improvement over Jaunty in speed on his HD that he decided to stay with it. I recommened he replace the two 256MB RAM chips for two 512MB RAM chips but he said he couldn't afford it. Too many kids.

[fermier]

Re: Can't get any Ubuntu versions to work after Hardy

There is going to be, a Kubuntu remix for Lucid, using KDE 3.5.11 that should be out in a week or so. There already is such a remix for Karmic.

As far as I know there is already a KDE 3.5 remix for Lucid. I am not sure whether this is an official version and moderator please do not flame me for giving the link... :-)

https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/Kde3/Lucid

While I am here, I can also state on my even older PIII PC with 512 MB RAM, but an nVidia Riva TNT2 64MB card no new Lucid (except alternate CD) will boot. The reason is, I suspect, nouveau. Not the reason why this thread started, I admit, but similar. I was wondering whether it would not be possible to make a complete Lucid installation without any GDE and then once the installation is complete, on simply adds the Lucid KDE 3.5 remix repository (as described in the link above) and install KDE 3.5? I am not sure that the server version is what I would like...

Wrote to the supporter of the KDE 3.5 remix versions, but he does not answer. He is a busy man. In my youth, I was able to select with another Linux distribution (the only one available at the time) each and every single package to be installed before the installation started. It used to take hours and heaven protect you against dependencies (of which admittedly there were fewer than today). Those were the "good old days..." ;-)

l8r

[jonthomas]

Re: Can't get any Ubuntu versions to work after Hardy

I installed debian lenny 5.04 on my intel 82845gl desktop with 384Mb ram, using the default gnome desktop. OK it's not Ubuntu, but it is Linux

So far it is working very well, apart from no suspend or standby, not a single Xserver crash in 3 days.

I am quite impressed by Debian, running well with pretty much a default install. I have read that some users with my graphics chip have had to edit their Xorg.conf and comment out the DRI acceleration line and/or insert their monitors resolution & sync frequencies, but in my case it has configured "correctly" by itself (actually my Xorg.conf is minimal & lists my graphics chip as Intel 840 but it seems to work) . The only help I gave it was to select my native resolution (1280x1024x8) during my (graphical) install.

My only problems have been of my own making: I installed Firefox using a .tar.gz I downloaded from Mozilla in addition to the Iceweasel default install without creating a separate profile first, so both browsers were using the same profile for a while.

I installed (only) flashplugin-nonfree from debian lenny backports which is working very well, commenting backports out of my sources list immediately after so it wouldn't conflict with any existing packages already installed.