|
To all the people who like to use Linux. What distro would you recommend for a laptop with the following specs:
Pentium 4, about 1.8 GHz
256 MB ram
32MB ATI mobility radeon 9000 series graphics card (don't know the exact model because ATI doesn't seem to want to display it in dxdiag)
30GB hard drive
14" monitor, it's not a netbook but a notebook that's very old.
As you can see the laptop is very old. And very slow. It's currently running XP but it's so slow that it's almost unusable even when trying to do something as trivial as launching firefox. And no, I haven't been infected with a virus or anything. I think no one will argue with me when I say that XP doesn't play nice with only 256 MB of ram, which is why I want to have it run Linux so it will be a lot faster.
I just need this computer to run office 2007open office 2007 files, browse the web, and play spider solitaire. Was originally thinking of Ubuntu but maybe it's a bit too heavy?
Edit: You guys are right, I don't need MS Office but I do need to be able to open MS Office files. OpenOffice should be fine, but if anyone knows some good, lightweight standalone applications for word processing and spreadsheets, that would be even greater! AbiWord is nice, is there an Excel equivalent?
 
|
Zurich15317 Posts
Well you have to realize that Linux can not magically make your Firefox go faster on 256 RAM. What Linux offers is the freedom to not use a lot of software to save RAM.
I am sure there are a number of modified Debian distributions out there specifically designed to run on old hardware, try Google. You could also get a plain Debian and run a light desktop environment like FluxBox or XFCE.
In any case you will have to do some work to make it run fast. Again, Linux is not faster per se but allows you to do without a lot of stuff, but you’ll probably have to make it happen yourself.
Edi, reading your Edit: Office 2007 (doesn't run on Linux anyway) and Firefox are just huge pieces of software. They won't run fast on your hardware no matter what OS you have under the hood.
|
First of all Office 2007 doesn't run on Linux. You need to fallback to some other solution like openoffice.org or something else.
I would recommend going for a lightweight desktop manager (i.e. not Ubuntu which comes with GNOME). An expert could totally build a really nice system for your Specs with XFCE or even something more lightweight like LXDE, but I don't suppose that you know how to build a modular system yourself?
You could try Lubuntu which comes with LXDE and is easy enough to install because it is based on Ubuntu. Here's a review which recommends it for your purposes:
http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/2010/06/12/lubuntu-10-04/6/
Cheers
Bastian
|
Vanilla Ubuntu is probably a bit too heavy, I'd go with Xubuntu if you're looking to run any ubuntu variant. Ubuntu Netbook Remix should work too, but that is obviously not meant for desktop boxes.
Personally, I run Debian on basically anything, since that's rock solid and can be configured to grab as little or much resources as you want it to. Try going for an older version, like stable or even oldstable. If the standard GNOME UI is too heavy, I'd go for a simple window manager with some kind of menu system and leave off all the other cruft.
Still, though, you mention Office 2007, which I'm unsure how you are planning on running on a linux box.. Are you planning on running it through WINE? Staying on XP is probably wiser in that case. If you want to run OpenOffice.org, that has its own problems as a resource hog as well.
Really, I think your biggest problem is to run a somewhat modern office suit on nothing more than 256 MB, not specifically XP (although that probably doesn't help).
What functionality are you after, exactly, when you say Office 2007? Word processing? Try Abiword. I'm sure there are lighter programs to use for spreadsheets as well, although I'm no expert on those.
|
Abiword and Gnumeric are really nice alternatives to Word/Excel/OpenOffice.org
|
There are 3 linux distro's which i really like:
Ubuntu
Everyone knows and loves ubuntu. It is by far the most polished, enterprise-ready distro out there. It Just Works(tm). Not much else to say. Personally i'm using ubuntu on a laptop which is quite slow as well. 1ghz celeron and 386mb ram - oh yeah. The default window manager, gnome, "runs" but its quite slow. What i did was replace it with fluxbox, which runs amazingly fast considering the hardware.
Fedora
Uses the RPM package system, unlike ubuntu/debian. Not quite as polished as ubuntu, has a bit more focus on security which means you have to get comfortable with SeLinux (or just disable it =P). They dont include nearly as many packages (applications) in their official repositories as ubuntu which can be a pain.
Arch linux
If you have no life, this is a very good distro. It allows you to tweak just about everything, without going to extremes like LFS or Gentoo (Both of which i really, really dislike but thats a whole other discussion).
You say you need your computer for office 2007. You may or may not have some issues running office in linux, no matter what distro you pick. StarOffice/OpenOffice and Google Docs are great alternatives tho.
Edit:
Try going for an older version, like stable or even oldstable.
I really dont like this advice for a desktop machine. For production servers, sure, but for a desktop machine? Why oh why?
Edit2:
As someone else suggested, try using Google chromium - its fast!
|
On June 29 2010 23:04 pettter wrote:
Vanilla Ubuntu is probably a bit too heavy, I'd go with Xubuntu if you're looking to run any ubuntu variant. Ubuntu Netbook Remix should work too, but that is obviously not meant for desktop boxes.
Personally, I run Debian on basically anything, since that's rock solid and can be configured to grab as little or much resources as you want it to. Try going for an older version, like stable or even oldstable. If the standard GNOME UI is too heavy, I'd go for a simple window manager with some kind of menu system and leave off all the other cruft.
Still, though, you mention Office 2007, which I'm unsure how you are planning on running on a linux box.. Are you planning on running it through WINE? Staying on XP is probably wiser in that case. If you want to run OpenOffice.org, that has its own problems as a resource hog as well.
Really, I think your biggest problem is to run a somewhat modern office suit on nothing more than 256 MB, not specifically XP (although that probably doesn't help).
What functionality are you after, exactly, when you say Office 2007? Word processing? Try Abiword. I'm sure there are lighter programs to use for spreadsheets as well, although I'm no expert on those.
Xubuntu definitely. I've been able to run it on way worse machines without a problem. Theoretically, open office should run on your machine according to the requirements. But 256MB of RAM is definitely small, and so you might run into lagginess.
I've used a word processor on linux that will do word processing without a lot of memory usage, I just don't remember the name after so long. I'd recommend just to look around and do some searches for the applications and find some that work for you.
|
With your amount of RAM, I'd definitely go for Xfce, as it's the most light-weight X environment available. I personally use Debian, because of it's stability and package manager, but there are a lot of other good distros out there.
With OpenOffice 3 you are able to open docx/pptx/etc files, so that's no problem.
For web browswing I wouldn't use Firefox, but something "lighter", like Google Chrome (which is oficially available for Linux now).
|
|
|
On June 29 2010 23:08 mgj wrote:Edit: I really dont like this advice for a desktop machine. For production servers, sure, but for a desktop machine? Why oh why?
The short answer: because older versions are faster.
The long answer: As programs develop over the years, hardware gets better and better, so programmers can cut corners in engineering and pile on feature after feature requiring more and more resources, leading to modern programs likely not even starting on a computer bought around the turn of the millenium. As both stable and oldstable are still more or less actively maintained, the usual problem with old software (unfixed, well-known security holes) is usually not present, or at least alleviated somewhat.
|
The short answer: because older versions are faster.
I'm sorry, but i have to call bullshit on that one. It's simply not true. If i'm not mistaken, debian only allows critical security patches into stable, thus leaving out any performance improving and new feature patches. When you are on a desktop machine, you want those more than you want security.
Now I have to be honest, i have not used debian for a long time. I believe "sarge" was hot when i used it last. Back then, i remember SID using something crazy like 20% less memory with gnome running, compared to stable.
Maybe debian have changed their policy about updates to stable, but i doubt it.
|
|
|
Puppy Linux is a pretty popular lightweight distro that focuses on usability. It can also use Ubuntu binary packages.
edit: if you're coming from Windows looking for something faster, you're probably not going to want to learn a "hardcore" distro for power users, even if it can be built and configured to be really fast. Also, I'd stay away from distros with stricter adherence to free software philosophy over usability. You also don't need enterprise-level server stability.
|
Damn, forgot about compatibility issues with Office + Linux. I do need to at least open .docx and .xlsx files but my last experience with OpenOffice (2.0 I think) was even worse than Microsoft Office. Wine is probably not a solution because I'm assuming that it will be even slower. I can probably live with OpenOffice though 
Poll: Which Distro?Xubuntu (7) 78% Debian (2) 22% 9 total votes Your vote: Which Distro? (Vote): Xubuntu
(Vote): Debian
edit: You guys are right, I don't need MS Office but I do need to be able to open MS Office files. OpenOffice should be fine, but if anyone knows some good, lightweight standalone applications for word processing and spreadsheets, that would be even greater! AbiWord is nice, is there an Excel
equivalent?
|
I'm not an expert, but I have read numerous times that Xubuntu is not faster than Ubuntu. If you want a flavor of Ubuntu you should definetely go for Lubuntu.
|
On June 29 2010 23:41 Myrmidon wrote:
edit: if you're coming from Windows looking for something faster, you're probably not going to want to learn a "hardcore" distro for power users, even if it can be built and configured to be really fast. Also, I'd stay away from distros with stricter adherence to free software philosophy over usability. You also don't need enterprise-level server stability.
This man speaks the truth! For this reason I would not consider debian as an option in your case, but the choice is, ofcourse, yours.
|
Downloading Xubuntu, thanks for the help! Now go watch the second half of Japan vs Paraguay.
|
I have to say, I'm worried if you try Xubuntu if XP is really THAT slow. I had a similar comp, and the first thing I put on it was Xubuntu; it was slightly better, but still slow.
What I recommend is something like crunchbang linux, a distro that's specifically recommended for older computers, or if that's not fast enough, than something even faster, like damn small linux.
The great thing about linux is that you can pretty much always just keep on uninstalling then reinstalling new distros, trying them out. Learn to use gparted as well, very helpful
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
If you need to work with Office file often, I would just get more RAM from eBay, re-install XP from scratch, and use Chrome instead of Firefox. OpenOffice.org is slow and ugly.
|
There is somebody who uses Debian testing here? I think it's really good 
|
Canada9720 Posts
with a piece of shit comp like that the last thing you want to run is KDE 4. anyone recommending xubuntu is off their rocker.
|
On June 30 2010 00:50 CTStalker wrote:
with a piece of shit comp like that the last thing you want to run is KDE 4. anyone recommending xubuntu is off their rocker.
What would you recommend then?
|
Peppermint OS!http://peppermintos.com/
There. If you're connected to the net a lot of the time, then it should be awesome. and Gnumeric is a light equivalent of Excel.
|
Puppy Linux on that little ram.
|
On June 30 2010 00:50 CTStalker wrote:
with a piece of shit comp like that the last thing you want to run is KDE 4. anyone recommending xubuntu is off their rocker.
Uh... Xubuntu runs XFCE, last I checked. Kubuntu is the KDE variant.
On June 29 2010 23:33 mgj wrote:I'm sorry, but i have to call bullshit on that one. It's simply not true. If i'm not mistaken, debian only allows critical security patches into stable, thus leaving out any performance improving and new feature patches. When you are on a desktop machine, you want those more than you want security. Now I have to be honest, i have not used debian for a long time. I believe "sarge" was hot when i used it last. Back then, i remember SID using something crazy like 20% less memory with gnome running, compared to stable. Maybe debian have changed their policy about updates to stable, but i doubt it.
In the modern kitchen sink programming environment, what do you think the ratio is between 'patches increasing performance' and 'patches adding features'? What is the general resulting performance of successive versions of a particular program suite for this?
I'm not categorically saying that this is the case for every program, but in general terms, it is unfortunately true.
|
since it seems that you didn't read my post I'll simply say it again and back it up this time:
Xubuntu vs Lubuntu:
Performance
We tested Xubuntu LiveCD on a relatively modest 1GB RAM, 2Ghz Single core processor and 128MB video card machine– typical hardware one might be tempted to install Xubuntu on to eek performance out of.
Overall RAM usage with 3 tabs open in Firefox, 1 playing a HTML5 YouTube video.
Ubuntu Beta 1: 222 MB
Xubuntu Beta 1: 215.8 MiB
Lubuntu Beta 1: 137 MB
As you can see Xubuntu, as we’ve mentioned previously, shows very little lean-ness compared to Ubuntu proper, which begs the question ‘why would you use it over Ubuntu?’.
Source: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/xubuntu-1004-beta-1-remains-borderline.html
|
Canada9720 Posts
On June 30 2010 01:00 pettter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2010 00:50 CTStalker wrote:
with a piece of shit comp like that the last thing you want to run is KDE 4. anyone recommending xubuntu is off their rocker. Uh... Xubuntu runs XFCE, last I checked. Kubuntu is the KDE variant.
woops, you're right of course. momentary bout of dyslexia
|
On June 30 2010 01:01 distant_voice wrote:since it seems that you didn't read my post I'll simply say it again and back it up this time: Xubuntu vs Lubuntu: Performance We tested Xubuntu LiveCD on a relatively modest 1GB RAM, 2Ghz Single core processor and 128MB video card machine– typical hardware one might be tempted to install Xubuntu on to eek performance out of. Overall RAM usage with 3 tabs open in Firefox, 1 playing a HTML5 YouTube video. Ubuntu Beta 1: 222 MB Xubuntu Beta 1: 215.8 MiB Lubuntu Beta 1: 137 MB As you can see Xubuntu, as we’ve mentioned previously, shows very little lean-ness compared to Ubuntu proper, which begs the question ‘why would you use it over Ubuntu?’. Source: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/xubuntu-1004-beta-1-remains-borderline.html
I stand corrected, I'll get both and decide tomorrow. Thanks!
|
Just have a look at CrunchBang Linux. It´s based on Ubuntu like Xubuntu, Lubuntu etc. with Openbox as the default and very moderate windowmanager. If you want to poke around visit http://distrowatch.com/ You will find lots of reviews and recommend links.
|
On June 30 2010 00:50 CTStalker wrote:
with a piece of shit comp like that the last thing you want to run is KDE 4. anyone recommending xubuntu is off their rocker.
Don't you mean anyone recommending Kubuntu is off their rocker? Xubuntu IIRC uses XFCE, which is far more lightweight than either KDE or Gnome
Don't know about the distro (I crystallised on Debian a long time ago, and I reckon it would be a decent choice, but I've not bothered checking out the competition lately) , but since the OP plans to use the rather bloated OpenOffice, I'm voting that he tries out the gnumeric spreadsheet before OO.calc, because it's much faster and lighter, and also gets its sums right far more often than Excel.
|
archlinux if u have the time and patience to learn.
you should just buy a 1gig stick of ram
|
On June 30 2010 01:00 pettter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2010 00:50 CTStalker wrote:
with a piece of shit comp like that the last thing you want to run is KDE 4. anyone recommending xubuntu is off their rocker. Uh... Xubuntu runs XFCE, last I checked. Kubuntu is the KDE variant. Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 23:33 mgj wrote:The short answer: because older versions are faster. I'm sorry, but i have to call bullshit on that one. It's simply not true. If i'm not mistaken, debian only allows critical security patches into stable, thus leaving out any performance improving and new feature patches. When you are on a desktop machine, you want those more than you want security. Now I have to be honest, i have not used debian for a long time. I believe "sarge" was hot when i used it last. Back then, i remember SID using something crazy like 20% less memory with gnome running, compared to stable. Maybe debian have changed their policy about updates to stable, but i doubt it. In the modern kitchen sink programming environment, what do you think the ratio is between 'patches increasing performance' and 'patches adding features'? What is the general resulting performance of successive versions of a particular program suite for this? I'm not categorically saying that this is the case for every program, but in general terms, it is unfortunately true.
"Kitchen sink programming environment" - Heh, i like that one.
I think im starting to see where you are comming from. Even big, well established projects like firefox have such problems. Just look how long they postponed doing something about their horrible memory issues. Adding new features is definitely more fun than optimizing performance.
I'm still a bit hung up on the whole "old software = faster" tho. If you are using a newer/more-up-to-date repository, there may or may not be performance issues compared to old versions. The difference is, there is the possibility of getting "performance improving patches". In debian stable, there is not AFAIK.
I think you are too quick to dismiss the importance of new features on a desktop machine. Especially since OP said he needs to do a lot of text and spreadsheets. From what i can tell, debian stable is still stuck using OpenOffice 1.x which isn't really a good alternative to MS office 2007. I guess you could install a newer version yourself without using the repository, but that kindda defeats the purpose IMO.
I really still believe the main reason to run stable should be for stability and security - NOT performance.
Edit: To OP: Ubuntu may feel a little bloated compared to some of the more "hardcore" distro's. However, the documentation and help you can find online for ubuntu is by far the best i've seen for any distro. There are benefits to using the, i believe, most common desktop distro out there. You will need to put in a bit of work in changing the window manager for a massive performance boost, but it's really not hard. There are great how-to's for pretty much any window manager you would want to try out.
|
On June 29 2010 23:01 zatic wrote:
Well you have to realize that Linux can not magically make your Firefox go faster on 256 RAM. What Linux offers is the freedom to not use a lot of software to save RAM.
I am sure there are a number of modified Debian distributions out there specifically designed to run on old hardware, try Google. You could also get a plain Debian and run a light desktop environment like FluxBox or XFCE.
In any case you will have to do some work to make it run fast. Again, Linux is not faster per se but allows you to do without a lot of stuff, but you’ll probably have to make it happen yourself.
Edi, reading your Edit: Office 2007 (doesn't run on Linux anyway) and Firefox are just huge pieces of software. They won't run fast on your hardware no matter what OS you have under the hood.
This is good advice. As a big FluxBox supporter I would add that you should try a combination of Ubuntu/FluxBox if this is your first Linux experience. I believe there is a lightweight Ubuntu/FluxBox distro called fluxbuntu, but I have no experience with it so I can't say how it is. Simply installing Ubuntu and ditching GNOME for FluxBox will give you a pretty tiny memory footprint as is. Also xfce can look really nice on modest hardware. The latest versions of Firefox will be rough with such little memory available, but there are other browsers out there that can offer modern features on older systems. For example I've used xfce's default browser Midori on embedded devices with good results.
If you are feeling up to the task and want a linux learning experience, I would recommend getting the latest Debian distro, (lenny i believe) installing just the bare OS (no Desktop Environment etc) and using aptitude to get what you need. IE x-server, xterm, FluxBox, CPU frequency regulation software (because its a laptop), WiFi management, etc. With this method you would obviously need to put in a lot of effort to get the system you want (if it's your first time), but you will have the advantage of using a desktop environment that you are strongly familiar with since you essentially put it together yourself.
EDIT: I come from an embedded systems background so I'm a little bit out of touch when it comes to Linux in the desktop world. Just a disclaimer.
Also Links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxbuntu Fluxbuntu distro
http://www.xfce.org/ xfce desktop environment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments nice little comparison from wiki
|
TossFloss
Canada606 Posts
First, you really should upgrade your RAM. Memory is cheap cheap cheap.
I run Debian stable on the following laptop:
- Pentium M 1.73Mhz
- 766M RAM
- Some crappy video card
Most of everything runs smoothly. Some Javascript heavy websites like Slashdot lag. I can watch Youtube no problem.
Without a ram upgrade, keep your window manager as light as possible. Try: http://www.windowmaker.info/gallery.php
|
TossFloss
Canada606 Posts
Additionally, try to run Ubuntu off a boot CD. See how you like it.
|
Ubuntu with 256mb of ram wouldn't do too well
|
|
|
Debian's logo looks so much like Zerg's <3
Better (x)ubuntu, because it's always easier to dive in without exp. In terms of tech. specs I don't think you can go too wrong with the choice of distro.
As others said though - please consider ram upgrade if possible, there's usually some way.. Having such decent graphics with such horrible ram is just.... not allowed xD. If it's possible, it should be quite cheap, and extremely cost-beneficial for your overall performance under any OS.
|
Peppermint is an ubuntu-based distro with LXDE and openbox with all the drivers and codecs and stuff preinstalled. Kind of like the offspring of Crunchbang and Linux Mint, so you're pretty much getting the best of both worlds. It's MUCH faster than ubuntu or Xubuntu, so that might be a lot better for you.
It won't come with OpenOffice and Gimp and all that, but you can install them all after installation anyway.
|
On June 30 2010 09:01 .Ix wrote:
Peppermint is an ubuntu-based distro with LXDE and openbox with all the drivers and codecs and stuff preinstalled. Kind of like the offspring of Crunchbang and Linux Mint, so you're pretty much getting the best of both worlds. It's MUCH faster than ubuntu or Xubuntu, so that might be a lot better for you.
It won't come with OpenOffice and Gimp and all that, but you can install them all after installation anyway.
I did some research and went with this in the end. Installed it and its really fast and cool. The one thing is, I don't have a spider solitaire app haha, and the games I find (like KDEgames) aren't for LXDE and therefore require like 400+MB of space. So if anyone uses LXDE system and has a game app, please share
|
Gentoo if you have the technical skill do install it. That thing is godlike when it comes to optimizing everything to suit your comp as much as possible, although with the time you spent on installing it (you'll tweak everything in the installation) you might find the return to be slightly not worth you time.
And I would recommend Go-OO over openoffice. It's faster.
|
Linux Mint is the one I'm using. It's basically just a more user friendly version of Ubuntu. It's good if you're just getting into Linux or you're just not that interested in fully customizing everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
