I obtained an old HP Pavilion laptop from my father, model N5445. I've toyed with the idea of running linux since it is free and is supposed to be the best thing because of the freedom programmers have for customizing it. Plus, it has all the great free support from enthusiasts on the message boards. Bear in mind, this is honestly my fifth attempt at giving it a try over 5 years. Power users talk about how great it is....but is it?
Here's my progress so far.
Ubuntu: FAIL - system locks up in installation
Mint: FAIL - system locks up in installation
OpenSUSE: Runs, however PCMICA D-link card does not work. System VERY slow...
Now installing Gentoo to hopefully optimize the Pentium 1.0Ghz, 256 megs..
In my opinion, linux is still geek territory for those in the know. I could be wrong. Suggestions??
6 comments:
OK, this is a great post and I'm sure it will generate some heat from Mr. Howes once he reads it. Here are my thoughts...
These current iterations of Linux are full of their own bloat and GUIs that don't look all that much different from a Windows desktop. Some even have Aero-like (Vista) capabilities. To that end, a Pentium III 1GHz CPU with 256MB RAM is just too dang slow to run anything beyond Windows 95 or a much older version of Linux - perhaps a Red Hat 7.x from the late '90s.
Now to be fair, the Linux junkies of the world would argue that Linux is "scalable" and has a strong-hold on the third-world countries where recycled old PCs are the way of the land. You can indeed run the latest version of Ubuntu 8, minus a GUI like GNOME or KDE.
Check out this site - I don't see your particular HP laptop, but it should give you an idea of a similar model and what it can run:
http://www.linux-on-laptops.com/hp.html
The trouble with some of the older versions of Linux is that they weren't as user friendly as an Ubuntu 8.x and lacked support for things like a present-day PCMCIA card without being a Linux wizard. It won't plug and play, that's for sure.
So you're in a catch 22. You need a more powerful laptop to appreciate the new user-friendliness of the new iterations of Linux. And if you want to use ancient hardware like this P-III 1GHz laptop, then you'll need a much older version of Linux, which will drive you crazy because it will be very difficult to get it to recognize your latest peripherals.
Did I mention Chris now uses Vista?
An interesting side-note about the next version of Windows, "Windows 7" is the working title and successor to Vista. Microsoft recognizes that the low-end PC market, and the ultra-low-end market (recycled PCs, third-world countries, etc) have almost exclusively adopted Linux. Rumors have it that Windows 7 will run on an ultra-thin "MinWin" kernal - a basic kernal that requires next to nothing to run on even the most ancient PCs, even ones limited to text-mode and 16-color graphics. The Windows 7 GUI will then be optional and scalable, and sit on top of the MinWin kernal, so those people with modern 4, 8, and 16-core CPU PCs will be able to utilize all of the Vista-like (and more) graphics and prettiness. This is a SMART move for Microsoft if the rumors are to be believe. Hmmm... almost reminds me of the DOS/Win95 days, when the GUI sat on top of the OS, doesn't it??
If you really want a Linux machine, you should bite the bullet and buy a $300 laptop. They are everywhere now, even new. Watch the Black Friday sales after Thanksgiving - I won't be surprised to see very nice and modern laptops falling in the $300 - $400 range. You could even get a Eee PC or the many competitors that are pre-installed with a version of Linux.
I have a Pentium-III Windows98 PC in my room back in Melbourne. It's pretty dang slow, but it at least has 1GB RAM which makes it bearable to check email, etc. Can you upgrade the RAM in that laptop to 1GB - that would help you out tremendously. I bet the installation is crashing because of only 256MB of RAM.
Bottom line: the best version of UNIX is Mac's Leopard!!! As for Ubuntu and the rest, they need hardware that has a bit more kick - definitely more RAM.
I've never been a Linux fan. Like you, every year or so I install it, play with it, and eventually delete it and go back to Windows. I spend all of my time trying to get Linux to act and look like Windows ... which makes me just want to use the real deal.
Chris will have a 180-degree difference of opinion... so lets here it, man.....
DE
By the way, I have an AMD Athlon XP 3000+ CPU with motherboard, nVideo GeForce FX 5500 AGP graphics card, and a ridiculous (for the time) 1.5GB RAM sitting pretty in a plastic container. I'm trying to decide what to do with it. Windows Home Server would run great ($109.99 at Newegg) as would Ubuntu and WindowsXP. This was my previous PC before building my monster Quad-Core PC back in mid-2007. If you're interested in buying these parts - and Hell - I could put it all back together and install Ubuntu on it for you - let me know and we can work out a "Best Man" deal ...
DE
Dan is right.. I'm still playing with Vista.. The main reason, as I've told him, was my ADD.. What I LOVE about Linux is the ability to customize EVERYTHING.. The problem is, there are SO many nobs that I wasted way, way too much time tweaking them when I found something I wanted to do. I needed something that was just broken and I couldn't fix it so that I could actually get some real work done.. Windows fit the bill..
That said, I still love Linux, but it has it's place.. If you want to put a copy of Linux on a computer that is that level of performance, I recommend looking at Xubuntu (slimmed down Ubuntu) or looking at one of the Ubuntu distro's that are meant for the new NetBooks.. They are much, much slimmer and have less of the bloat that comes with most of the distros now-a-days.. Xubuntu, especially, is designed to run on a Pentium II, so the PIII you want to throw at it should be plenty fast..
Windows 7 is an interesting beast in that it is what Vista was supposed to be.. I'll believe it when I see it as far as a "slimmed down" footprint.. The programming paradigm that MS uses with .NET does allow for code to be developed in a modular manner, but the supporting modules required to get ANYTHING running are enormous.. We shall see..
With all due respects, I was expecting Chris to reply! :) I had given up on the Linux thing but after hearing about his success and all of the chatter on Lifehacker and Linux.com regarding Ubuntu, it seemed like a good idea.
Well, I can't see that working when installations are this difficult to accomplish on a very basic and common laptop. And I consider myself to have have decent form of computing skills to know what to do. I've tried Ubuntu on a desktop system and it worked..except for the wireless cards. What is with getting these darn wireless cards to work!?!? I own a very standard D-Link.
What I would like to see is a stripped down distribution and lets you add what you want, not install EVERYTHING. It should have an easy graphical installation. This Gentoo installation with the text based compiling is a JOKE!!!
I hope someone can prove me wrong or point me in the right direction because Windows 2000 is looking much better right now.
Buy a Core i7 and Vista, you will not be disappointed!
To sum up all of these posts, Linux blows and Microsoft is the solution for all three of us!
Uhm.. Not so much.. My point was that MS is the brainless solution, which is why I picked it to play with.. When I want to actually start using my computer for something useful that requires some thought, I will put Linux back on it.. Until then, I will keep dealing with the Vista BSOD's that I missed so much on Linux.. :-)
Post a Comment