Lightweight OS for old computer?

X

x-naga

on vacation
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
1,531
I have a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz, with only 512ram. Right now I have windows xp on it and it runs fine except for when I have several web browser sessions, however windows over time becomes slower and slower until you restart which is why I am looking for a unix based solution.

All I do on this computer is web development, so far a light based OS all I really need is VI and a very very simple GUI. Can anyone recommend a memory light distro, bundle and desktop manager?

Thanks for your help
 
So Linux is out.

So why not a BSD. FreeBSD will run on just about everything, and you can install fluxbox on it to.
 
If you're looking for simple and lightweight, but still easy to set up, I would recommend setting up a minimal ubuntu installation. To do this, download the alternate install CD, hit F4 at the initial CD boot screen, and select "Install a Command Line System".
Once you're installed, enable universe repositories, and do
Code: 
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get -y dist-upgrade
sudo apt-get -y install fluxbox
This will update your system and install fluxbox (very lightweight window manager). To start the gui, once you login, you type 'startx'.
You're probably going to want to install whatever other applications you need (eg Firefox). This will need to be done from the command line via apt-get, since you have no graphical package manager yet. You could also install synaptic, to manage packages from your GUI, if you prefer to do things that way.
 
If you're using Firefox, regardless of the underlying OS, you're going to have problems with that box. Over time, FFox is going to eventually consume all your memory (mine's sucking up 384MB right now and it's only been running for a day).

Honestly, if you can bump that machine up to 1GB, it'll do you a lot more good than all the tweaking & squeezing you can do trying to shave a few MB off a desktop environment.
 
Arainach said:
Most people use UNIX and Linux interchangably. Like the OP - from his context, you would see that he's referring to "Not Windows".
Click to expand...

I think i agree, its quite often that people think of linux as UNIX even though that can be technically disputed. Guess the op will clarify this soon.


Anyway I liked RavenD's option ubuntu + fluxbox, another one would be DSL although on a P4 that might be overdoing it and since its on the old 2.4 kernel you might be missing on some new features.

http://damnsmalllinux.org/
 
Scotch77 said:
i dont think so.
Click to expand...

Trying to get your 'obnoxious pedant' merit badge?

If you say "Unix" is something that contains source from the original AT&T Unix, the BSD's don't count either. The BSDs owe their existance to the release of a copy of 4.4BSD that was stripped of all AT&T code. If you want to argue that it's still "Unix" you're taking up unresolved philosophical arguments. If you want free Unix on the PC, your only real option these days is (Open)Solaris.

Speaking of philosophy, if you're going to argue nitpicky details about what makes something a unix, you've missed the point entirely.

Neutrino said:
I think i agree, its quite often that people think of linux as UNIX even though that can be technically disputed. Guess the op will clarify this soon.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that asking about a 'distro' gives more than enough context to safely assume that the OP was thinking Linux but there's enough flexibility in the requirements that anything vaguely unix-like with a GUI will do the job.
 
ameoba said:
If you're using Firefox, regardless of the underlying OS, you're going to have problems with that box. Over time, FFox is going to eventually consume all your memory (mine's sucking up 384MB right now and it's only been running for a day).

Honestly, if you can bump that machine up to 1GB, it'll do you a lot more good than all the tweaking & squeezing you can do trying to shave a few MB off a desktop environment.
Click to expand...

This ^^

In windows, Firefox, with just 1 tab uses ~100mb of ram, but when i have 15+ tabs along with java related pages, i've seen firefox use 1.2gb of ram before.

In Linux, i've not seen it that high, even with the same tabs open.
 
freebsd with fluxbox +1

i use it on my old laptop amd duron 1.1ghz with 256mb ram. its plenty :)

naim, pork, lynx, links, ninja, bitchx do all my IM/www/IRC :)

if im feeling up for a gui pidgin and firefox are win!
 
ameoba said:
Trying to get your 'obnoxious pedant' merit badge?

If you say "Unix" is something that contains source from the original AT&T Unix, the BSD's don't count either. The BSDs owe their existance to the release of a copy of 4.4BSD that was stripped of all AT&T code. If you want to argue that it's still "Unix" you're taking up unresolved philosophical arguments. If you want free Unix on the PC, your only real option these days is (Open)Solaris.

Speaking of philosophy, if you're going to argue nitpicky details about what makes something a unix, you've missed the point entirely.



I'm pretty sure that asking about a 'distro' gives more than enough context to safely assume that the OP was thinking Linux but there's enough flexibility in the requirements that anything vaguely unix-like with a GUI will do the job.
Click to expand...


I never defined Unix as something that had AT&T source code in it, you did. BSD's as you call them are derived from Unix and while the code may not be exact, if you compared the source codes in the majority of sections the base code has literally the same functionality. BSD's are Unix. Just as MacOSX with the FreeBSD and Mach micro kernels is also standard unix.

So no, Solaris is not the only option.

The difference between Linux and BSD's is the derived part. GNU/Linux has absolutely nothing to do with Unix, their is no lineage. So when somebody asks for a Unix based solution. they mean Unix.

Suggesting Linux is the same as suggesting windows for a Unix based solution.
 
My god, you're as bad as Stallman and his GNU/Linux crap. At this point, you're just intentionally trolling. 99% of the world has no idea what the difference between Linux and UNIX is and use the terms interchangably.
 
To the OP: Minimal Ubuntu is my recommendation. There are indeed many other suitable options though (such as Debian).

Scotch77 said:
So no, Solaris is not the only option.

The difference between Linux and BSD's is the derived part. GNU/Linux has absolutely nothing to do with Unix, their is no lineage. So when somebody asks for a Unix based solution. they mean Unix.

Suggesting Linux is the same as suggesting windows for a Unix based solution.
Click to expand...
Not only are you being pedantic, but you're incorrect about what you're being pedantic about.

Unix is a trademark currently held by the Open Group. To distribute an OS as a Unix, it must be compliant with the Single UNIX Specification. Additionally the Open Group must verify this and give the distributor their approval; otherwise you get sued. Neither BSD or Linux are registered Unixes by this definition, however both come very close to being compliant (if not 100%). Code lineage is irrelevant. You can write a brand new OS and distribute it as a Unix as long as it meets the SUS spec and is registered as such.

Now it would be reasonable for you to tell me that this isn't the colloquial and understood definition, but I would then accuse you of exactly the same thing.
 
The standard and the OS are two different things. Notice how Unix the OS itself is not even sus compliant.
 
More pedantry:

Scotch77 said:
The standard and the OS are two different things. Notice how Unix the OS itself is not even sus compliant.
Click to expand...

This may well be true, and if it is, then the original Unix code could not be distributed with the Unix name anymore.

It's possible, however unlikely, that the OP actually wanted some legacy 1969 code on his computer, or some child of that code.

More likely though, is that the OP wanted something that was Unix-like, maybe something conforming to SUS, maybe POSIX, or maybe neither (like Minix). All he specified was that it was to be Unix-based, which as our discussion has shown is somewhat ambiguous. In fact, he didn't even say it had to be a Unix at all, just "unix-based"; now based on what I don't know - it could have been based on the code, or the security system, or the process abstraction, design principles, etc.

Given this ambiguity, it is up to us to use our brains and linguistic knowledge to interpret what he has said.



Let's look at the context:
- OP is posting in the "Linux/BSD/Free Systems" section; not the AT&T derived section.
- OP is sufficiently unaware of his options that he is asking us; perhaps also unaware of the intricacies of the trademark and code dissemination over the past 40 years; may be using the term Unix generically.
- OP has no requirement for anything exclusive to AT&T derived Unix code.

I figure one of two possible things has occurred here:
1) You were being annoyingly pedantic by insisting that he couldn't use a Linux, ignorant of the variety of differing yet legitimate definitions of Unix.
2) You were being even more annoyingly pedantic, aware of the ambiguity of the term.





Edit: Apparently Minix became POSIX compliant in the late 90s.
 
The Op asked for a unix based solution. Solaris and the BSD's are considered unix based as for there linage, are considered Genetic Unix. Linux on the other hand has 0 linage to Unix. While it was made in a similar fashion to minux and thus is unix-like it is simply not Unix.
 
Scotch77 said:
The Op asked for a unix based solution. Solaris and the BSD's are considered unix based as for there linage, are considered Genetic Unix. Linux on the other hand has 0 linage to Unix. While it was made in a similar fashion to minux and thus is unix-like it is simply not Unix.
Click to expand...
I cannot believe you are continuing this moronic argument...
 
I won't hide the truth. If you want to stay with windows, but want a stripped down version. You can always torrent Windows Lite* Or whatever it's called.. XPLite.
 
Scotch77 said:
The Op asked for a unix based solution. Solaris and the BSD's are considered unix based as for there linage, are considered Genetic Unix. Linux on the other hand has 0 linage to Unix. While it was made in a similar fashion to minux and thus is unix-like it is simply not Unix.
Click to expand...

Nobody has suggested Linux is a code descendant of AT&T Unix. The OP never requested a "genetic unix" either. You're the one putting that requirement forward, not the OP.

The OP requested something "unix-based". This could mean any number of things, some of which Linux would qualify for, some of which it wouldn't.

You insisting that Linux couldn't possibly fall under the umbrella of a unix-based system is inaccurate pedantry.
 
wasn't it Scotch77 that started that thread "Linux is a kernel, not an OS" a year or so ago
 
Jump onto a different browser, firefox loves ram like none other, try Chrome
 
I've got ubuntu 9.04 running on a little HP small form factor PC with a 2.6Ghz P4 and 1GB RAM. Works a charm! I have mine hooked up in the kitchen/diner for light tasks like iPlayer and music, not a problem with it and its much more snappy than winXP.
RAM is cheap!
 
Heh, this thread certainly went nowhere... To those who suggested adding more RAM when he's obviously looking for a last resort option to that, did you stop and think that maybe it's just not feasible? Could be an old RDRAM system, adding RAM to it would cost more $ than the system's worth. Even DDR can be pricey to find locally these days. FF does pig out on RAM pretty badly though, my FF process has been at half a gig for like a month, granted I've left half a dozen windows w/a dozen tabs each open but still... Would have to close them all completely for it to shoot back down to 100MB, closing even half would probably have no effect.
 
I would say unless you are planning on running compiz. regular Ubuntu will work just fine. It requires 384 MB minimum if I recall correctly, which would leave you with an experience similar to Win XP but definitely faster. With 500MB of RAM you could run firefox, and a couple of applications and still not hit swap too much. If you had less than 500 MB then I would consider some of the other suggestions but that's not the case here. No need to make this so difficult. You'll have a better experience sticking with the regular flavor of ubuntu. It definitely is more feature rich than Win Lite, and is more polished and much less of a headache than other alternatives.
 
Scotch77 said:
The Op asked for a unix based solution. Solaris and the BSD's are considered unix based as for there linage, are considered Genetic Unix. Linux on the other hand has 0 linage to Unix. While it was made in a similar fashion to minux and thus is unix-like it is simply not Unix.
Click to expand...
The BSDs and Linux are considered UNIX-like.

Just so you know, BSD have very little left of the original UNIX code.

EDIT: Oh also, I would suggest Arch with LXDE or Xubuntu.
 
Last edited:
I know you mentioned unix but...98Lite was a great little installation of Win98. Assuming you don't have newer hardware it is still a useful little OS. I've used it a lot in VM's.

You can even remove Internet Explorer from the OS install.
 
I've got Xubuntu running on a PIII 700MHz old thinkPad with 192MB of ram. It's definitely not fast, but it works for browsing the web, open office, listening to music.
 
Arch Linux, and build it yourself from the ground up... put just what you want/need on it and not a damned bit else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top