This is a discussion on Slackware version for Pentium I? within the Slackware Linux Support forums, part of the Unix Operating Systems category; --> Hello I want to setup desktop for Pentium I (233MMX) with 96MB of ram. I would prefer -current, but ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| Hello I want to setup desktop for Pentium I (233MMX) with 96MB of ram. I would prefer -current, but found it slow. I'm used to pentium 4, so my feelings might be not accurate. Would installing some older slackware help? It would put me into some troubles which first would be security bugfixes, (for 8.1 they are maintained, aren't they?). Then I would like to have there mozilla firebird and open office. So some libs might be needed more current. Beside, probably some newer versions are not always slower. So I'm looking for opinion, what to install for such desktop, what would fit best. I could try it by hand, but it will help me to hear some wise guys opinions of usage of older versions before downloading and installing them. How is XFree 3.3.6 compared to 4.x on older machines? While video is supported is for usage/speed better to use newest? Does kernek 2.6 would fit better than 2.4, or maybe better to use 2.2? How does it affect usage spped? Thanks for comments and suggestions. pozdr. Janek -- Cukier krzepi! |
| |||
| On 2004-05-13, Jan Alboszta <janek@usunto.gwozdzie.dhs.org> wrote: > Hello > I want to setup desktop for Pentium I (233MMX) with 96MB of ram. I would You can run 9.1 on it, but you'll need to run minimum desktops like fluxbox or xfce, etc. You should also max out your RAM. Sure, it's still going to be a little slow, but damn, it's practically stone-age! OTOH, I'm perfectly happy running 9.1 on a 433 celery PII, but then I've never driven a pent 4 so I don't know what I'm missing. nb |
| |||
| Dnia Thu, 13 May 2004 13:34:06 GMT notbob <notbob@nothome.com> Napisal: > On 2004-05-13, Jan Alboszta <janek@usunto.gwozdzie.dhs.org> wrote: > > Hello > > I want to setup desktop for Pentium I (233MMX) with 96MB of ram. I > > would > > You can run 9.1 on it, but you'll need to run minimum desktops like > fluxbox or xfce, etc. You should also max out your RAM. Sure, it's > still going to be a little slow, but damn, it's practically stone-age! Not so stone age. You would pay a fortune for it, ten years ago! I got it with soundblaster awe 32(this 32 is probably for length, 32cm) I already thought about xfce, but it still needs countable seconds to start firefox or open office (hell I found version of OO which refused to run on such "old" system (but it had best Polish support)). So I hoped that there is "simple" way to downgrade some apps which would make system faster. If it is possible of course.... pozdr. Janek -- Im więcej głów, tym więcej głupich pomysłów |
| |||
| Hi Jan Alboszta wrote: > > I want to setup desktop for Pentium I (233MMX) with 96MB of ram. I would > prefer -current, but found it slow. I'm used to pentium 4, so my feelings > might be not accurate. Would installing some older slackware help? It At a first glance, one tends to go back to older versions. But if your box is going to be a desktop, you will be endlessly experimenting with libraries to get various generations of software running. My advice: go for currenct (9.1 kernel 2.4) and avoid KDE/Gnome. There are cool alternatives like fluxbox, blackbox, icewm, xfce or even fvwm. > would put me into some troubles which first would be security bugfixes, > (for 8.1 they are maintained, aren't they?). Then I would like to have > there mozilla firebird and open office. So some libs might be needed more > current. Beside, probably some newer versions are not always slower. See the note above. > How is XFree 3.3.6 compared to 4.x on older machines? While video is Don't have an accurate comparison, but switched over to X 4 long ago. > supported is for usage/speed better to use newest? Does kernek 2.6 would > fit better than 2.4, or maybe better to use 2.2? How does it affect usage Even now (Slack 9.1) you can switch to kernel 2.6. Don't expect magic though IMHO P233 with 96MB should be OK for a desktop along the lines mentiones above. Visvanath. |
| |||
| On 2004-05-13, Jan Alboszta <janek@usunto.gwozdzie.dhs.org> wrote: > Not so stone age. You would pay a fortune for it, ten years ago! I pretty much did ...$1800 out the door while it was still bleeding edge. On the upside, the Sony 17" monitor still works as good as the day I bought it. > I got it with soundblaster awe 32(this 32 is probably for length, 32cm) No, 32bit technology. Still a good card. > I already thought about xfce, but it still needs countable seconds to > start firefox.... I think that's because firefox still uses that gecko engine thingie (does it?). I notice non-gecko web browsers (galeon, Konqueor, etc) boot almost instantly. I cut Mozilla's boot time from 18 secs to about 8 secs by disabling KDE's aRts sound server autoboot. nb |
| |||
| Jan Alboszta wrote: [slack on PI/96MB] > Not so stone age. You would pay a fortune for it, ten years ago! > I got it with soundblaster awe 32(this 32 is probably for length, 32cm) > I already thought about xfce, but it still needs countable seconds to > start firefox or open office yes, but that has little to do with the wm. i mean, it helps a little, but firefox and OOo are memory hogs themselves, so no matter what wm you use, they will always start up and run slow on a box like that. on my box, top shows an RSS of 85M for firefox-bin and 35M for soffice when it's just started, and 95M with a 118-page document loaded. hardly a problem with the 640MB RAM i have, but on your box, it'll be slow going. -- Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht EN:SiS(9) |
| |||
| >> You can run 9.1 on it, but you'll need to run minimum desktops like >> fluxbox or xfce, etc. I have a 100 mhz with 64 meg ram that runs Vector 4.0. It's based on Slack 9.x. Runs ok with IceWM. The lightest window manager is GNU Screen. :-) Michael |
| |||
| SchroedingerzKat wrote: > The lightest window manager is GNU Screen. :-) and if you insist on running X apps (but no *real* man does... ;-) there's always ratpoison. no, i don't mean rat poison, i mean ratpoison: <http://ratpoison.sourceforge.net/>. -- Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht EN:SiS(9) |
| |||
| > I think that's because firefox still uses that gecko engine thingie (does > it?). I notice non-gecko web browsers (galeon, Konqueor, etc) boot almost > instantly. I cut Mozilla's boot time from 18 secs to about 8 secs by > disabling KDE's aRts sound server autoboot. > I'm pretty sure Galeon is also gecko based. |
| ||||
| > I want to setup desktop for Pentium I (233MMX) with 96MB of ram. I would > prefer -current, but found it slow. I'm used to pentium 4, so my feelings > might be not accurate. Would installing some older slackware help? It > would put me into some troubles which first would be security bugfixes, > (for 8.1 they are maintained, aren't they?). Then I would like to have > there mozilla firebird and open office. So some libs might be needed more > current. Beside, probably some newer versions are not always slower. > So I'm looking for opinion, what to install for such desktop, what would > fit best. I could try it by hand, but it will help me to hear some wise > guys opinions of usage of older versions before downloading and > installing them. > How is XFree 3.3.6 compared to 4.x on older machines? While video is > supported is for usage/speed better to use newest? Does kernek 2.6 would > fit better than 2.4, or maybe better to use 2.2? How does it affect usage > spped? > Thanks for comments and suggestions. With that kind of spec you really want to avoid OOo at all costs, and Mozilla as well if possible. You might be able to manage KOffice, but you're probably better off with AbiWord and Gnumeric. Use Epiphany for web browsing, and a lightweight WM is also a good idea. IMO it's not worth trying to use old versions, OOo will drag that system down even if you had a bootable version. |