25 Aug
2004
25 Aug
'04
6:27 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
alain.lutgen(a)ist.lu wrote:
| Hello,
|
| I decided recently to install ,LINUX Suse 9.1 using Yast2, on my old PC.
| It has only 64MB RAM, a PENTIUM CELERON 33 MHz processor and a 10GB Harddisk.
|
| Is it possible to run this LINUX Version correctly ???
Depends on what you want to do.
I assume the Celeron is at least 133 MHz
Running X-windows with KDE and OpenOffice will be a very bad experience.
128MBytes of RAM would be the minimum. 256Mbytes would be adequate even if still slow
due to the CPU.
You may run something like X with blackbox and applications like Opera or Mozilla and
other smaller X applications.
If you want to use it as a router/gateway/firewall/small web/mail-server the hardware
is fine.
You should subscribe to our mailing list: lilux-help(a)linux.lu
http://www.linux.lu/mailman/listinfo/lilux-help
For the list members: Please include Alain in reply he is not yet on the list.
|
| Nice greetings, ALAIN
|
|
|
|
|
| **********************************************************************
| This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
| intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
| are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
| the system manager.
|
| This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for the
presence of computer viruses.
|
| **********************************************************************
- --
Thierry Coutelier Président LiLux asbl
7, Rue Jacques Sturm L-2556 Luxembourg
Office:+352 710725 608 Home:+352 406776
http://www.linux.lu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBLDFrPOfrcNNQX7oRAvCUAKCRzOkUNhqS6ZeVf0ovFETGZFCR0wCdEAiq
7nRpGw30w24EFnvdiICkw2k=
=eMDN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
25 Aug
25 Aug
8:30 a.m.
New subject: Installing LINUX
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Thierry Coutelier wrote:
alain.lutgen(a)ist.lu wrote:
| I decided recently to install ,LINUX Suse 9.1 using Yast2, on my old PC.
| It has only 64MB RAM, a PENTIUM CELERON 33 MHz processor and a 10GB Harddisk.
|
| Is it possible to run this LINUX Version correctly ???
I run an older 8.? version of SuSE on similar hardware - AMD K6-2 350
with 64MB and 20GB disk. I'd be suprised if 9.1 took that much more
horsepower. The CPU is not the main "problem" here, it is the main
memory.
Depends on what you want to do.
I assume the Celeron is at least 133 MHz
Running X-windows with KDE and OpenOffice will be a very bad experience.
s/X-windows/X-window/
Indeed, KDE plus OOo in only 64MB is no fun, but will work.
128MBytes of RAM would be the minimum. 256Mbytes would
be adequate
even if still slow due to the CPU.
IMHO more RAM will do much more than a faster CPU. If Alain (I guess
that's #4 ;-)) can get additional RAM for free, he'd be fine - I
wouldn't want to invest much money in this kind of hardware though.
You may run something like X with blackbox and
applications like
Opera or Mozilla and other smaller X applications.
A lightweight windowmanager would certainly help, just as using
lightweight applications (i.e. not Mozilla, but dillo or somesuch).
There are several "minimal" GNU/Linux distros that feature such
lightweight apps.
DeLi might give some insights here:
<http://delilinux.berlios.de/>
It is a "Desktop Light" Linux distribution.
Only to give an idea, I've been using fluxbox/Mozilla/OOo/Notes/...
@work until a few months ago on a P3 450MHz w/ 328MB RAM an ca. 9GB HD.
It was plenty quick when the apps were loaded, but loading them in the
first place was slow.
OTOH, I'm plenty happy with KDE and all on my home box (Athlon 800,
768MB RAM, 2x 9GB SCSI disks) - only CivCTP feels sluggish.
If you want to use it as a
router/gateway/firewall/small web/mail-server
the hardware is fine.
ACK, even if you won't want to run a CMS there (I did try on my
P90 w/ 40MB, it's sloooooooowwwww.
You should subscribe to our mailing list:
lilux-help(a)linux.lu
http://www.linux.lu/mailman/listinfo/lilux-help
ACK.
For the list members: Please include Alain in reply he
is not yet on
the list.
[X] done.
Greets Eric
P.S. did you see yet that P&T & VO will upgrade DSL speeds?
4:48 p.m.
New subject: Installing LINUX
Eric Dondelinger wrote:
A lightweight windowmanager would certainly help, just
as using
lightweight applications (i.e. not Mozilla, but dillo or somesuch).
There are several "minimal" GNU/Linux distros that feature such
lightweight apps.
DeLi might give some insights here:
<http://delilinux.berlios.de/>
It is a "Desktop Light" Linux distribution.
I am administrating an old Pentium I 233 with 64Gb RAM used for Internet
Access only. Running WindowMaker with Mozilla is no problem. Loading
time for Mozilla: ~8sec (honestly). The 1.7 series are much faster than
the <= 1.6 ones.
Dillo is also fine and amazing for its size. But it doesn't have Frames,
SSL and so on.
Greetings, Patrick
26 Aug
26 Aug
6:17 a.m.
New subject: Installing LINUX
Hi Patrick,
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Patrick Kaell wrote:
Eric Dondelinger wrote:
<mode=nitpicking>
64Gb? Gigabit... i.e. 8GB, on a PI... should be hard to address ;-)
</mode>
Of course, everybody knows you meant 64MB :-)
A lightweight windowmanager would certainly help,
just as using
lightweight applications (i.e. not Mozilla, but dillo or somesuch).
I am administrating an old Pentium I 233 with 64Gb RAM used for Internet Access only. Running WindowMaker with Mozilla is no
problem. Loading
time for Mozilla: ~8sec (honestly). The 1.7 series are much faster than
the <= 1.6 ones.
I don't doubt 1.7 is faster than previous versions, but I do seriously
doubt that 8sec figure. I'll accept it, if you had Mozilla started
previously, so that parts may still be in ramdisk/cache somewhere
(even if there's not much of that on a 64MB box - you can still feel
the difference).
Also, on Windows boxes, Mozilla can be made to preload most of
itself so that startup times feel lower (same as IE or MS Office
do), you'll just pay for it at boot & login time.
I just booted up my laptop (Centrino 1.6, 512MB RAM), it took
Mozilla 1.7.2 about 11 seconds to start up (and the thing is
compiled to this specific machine - Gentoo). After closing it
and starting it up again, it took about 1 second only (of course
here most of it still fits into cache, despite usage of KDE and
having some apps running in parallel already).
Dillo is also fine and amazing for its size. But it
doesn't have Frames,
SSL and so on.
It has limitations, no doubt. Might I interest you in w3m instead?
Even if it's for textmode, depending on the version, you can have
proper display of tables, graphics etc.
Anyway, I've found this kind of tools extremely helpful when only
"lesser" machines were available for internet access.
Btw, is anyone here affiliated with the APSI? I visited their website
yesterday, it must be one of the worst layouts I've seen - at least
as displayed here in Mozilla. They really should do something about
it.
Greets Eric
12:45 p.m.
New subject: Installing LINUX
Hi Patrick,
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Patrick Kaell wrote:
This is true, I noticed it already some time ago ;)
Eric Dondelinger wrote:
<mode=nitpicking>
64Gb? Gigabit... i.e. 8GB, on a PI... should be hard to address ;-)
</mode>
Of course, everybody knows you meant 64MB :-)
A lightweight windowmanager would certainly help,
just as using
lightweight applications (i.e. not Mozilla, but dillo or somesuch).
I am administrating an old Pentium I 233 with 64Gb RAM used for Internet Access only. Running WindowMaker with Mozilla is
no problem. Loading
time for Mozilla: ~8sec (honestly). The 1.7 series are much faster than
the <= 1.6 ones.
I don't doubt 1.7 is faster than previous versions, but I do seriously
doubt that 8sec figure. I'll accept it, if you had Mozilla started
previously, so that parts may still be in ramdisk/cache somewhere
(even if there's not much of that on a 64MB box - you can still feel
the difference).
Also, on Windows boxes, Mozilla can be made to preload most of
itself so that startup times feel lower (same as IE or MS Office
do), you'll just pay for it at boot & login time.
I just booted up my laptop (Centrino 1.6, 512MB RAM), it took
Mozilla 1.7.2 about 11 seconds to start up (and the thing is
compiled to this specific machine - Gentoo). After closing it
and starting it up again, it took about 1 second only (of course
here most of it still fits into cache, despite usage of KDE and
having some apps running in parallel already).
Dillo is also fine and amazing for its size. But
it doesn't have Frames,
SSL and so on.
It has limitations, no doubt. Might I interest you in w3m instead?
Even if it's for textmode, depending on the version, you can have
proper display of tables, graphics etc.
Anyway, I've found this kind of tools extremely helpful when only
"lesser" machines were available for internet access.
Btw, is anyone here affiliated with the APSI? I visited their website
yesterday, it must be one of the worst layouts I've seen - at least
as displayed here in Mozilla. They really should do something about
it.
Greets Eric
_______________________________________________
Lilux-help mailing list
Lilux-help(a)lilux.lu
http://lilux.lu/mailman/listinfo/lilux-help
7:31 p.m.
New subject: Installing LINUX
Eric Dondelinger wrote:
I was impressed myself. At first I didn't think it was a good idea to
put such a heavy browser on this kind of machine, but I tried anyway. I
expected that it would not even be usable. I still remembered the
milestone era of Mozilla, when Mozilla was too slow on my K6-2. But I
tried anyway and I was surprised. I installed Mozilla 1.7.2 without the
mail client, chat client and so on. The 8sec figure is an approximation
I have in my head. I will time it tomorrow.
<mode=nitpicking>
64Gb? Gigabit... i.e. 8GB, on a PI... should be hard to address ;-)
</mode>
Of course, everybody knows you meant 64MB :-)
These kind of errors happen to me too often when I try to type something
fast ;-) Yes, I meant 64 Megabytes ;-)
Access only.
Running WindowMaker with Mozilla is no problem. Loading
time for Mozilla: ~8sec (honestly). The 1.7 series are much faster than
the <= 1.6 ones.
I don't doubt 1.7 is faster than previous versions, but I do seriously
doubt that 8sec figure. I'll accept it, if you had Mozilla started
previously, so that parts may still be in ramdisk/cache somewhere
(even if there's not much of that on a 64MB box - you can still feel
the difference). It has limitations, no doubt. Might I interest you in
w3m instead?
Even if it's for textmode, depending on the version, you can have
proper display of tables, graphics etc.
Anyway, I've found this kind of tools extremely helpful when only
"lesser" machines were available for internet access.
Sometimes, a more primitive browser can have a real advantage. Less
features, less code often also means less bugs and more security. And
dillo is good enough to view most news sites.
Greetings, Patrick
27 Aug
27 Aug
6:31 a.m.
New subject: Installing LINUX
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Patrick Kaell wrote:
Yup. Actually, the moment when I was very glad about w3m was
when I came back home from university. My 17" screen had broken
2 weeks before, and the only system I had capable of accessing
the 'net was my P133/48MB/2GB laptop w/ 800x600 LCD - system
on which I really didn't like to run X because of low res and
relatively little resources. Surfing the computing businesses'
sites with w3m, looking for a decent new monitor, was an
eye-opener as to really bad web design ;-)
Greets Eric
Eric Dondelinger wrote:
[Mozilla startup times]
I installed Mozilla
1.7.2 without the
mail client, chat client and so on. The 8sec figure is an approximation
I have in my head. I will time it tomorrow.
Ok the lack of mail/chat/kitchensink client might help, as there'd
be less to read from disk at startup. It would indeed almost sound
like Firefox ;-) which is said to have very nice startup times.
I don't have any system handy to test this atm.
It has
limitations, no doubt. Might I interest you in w3m instead?
Even if it's for textmode, depending on the version, you can have
proper display of tables, graphics etc.
Anyway, I've found this kind of tools extremely helpful when only
"lesser" machines were available for internet access.
Sometimes, a more primitive browser can have a real advantage. Less
features, less code often also means less bugs and more security. And
dillo is good enough to view most news sites.
5:45 p.m.
New subject: Installing LINUX
Eric Dondelinger wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Patrick Kaell wrote:
I have timed the Mozilla startup on the Pentium I 233Mhz machine today.
It was 18sec instead of my estimated 8sec. So the startup time was much
better in my memory than it really was ;-) But it is much more usable
than the milestone releases have been on the same "lesser" machines. But
this is also only a subjective impression I still have in my head ;-)
Greetings, Patrick Kaell
Eric Dondelinger wrote:
[Mozilla startup times]
I installed
Mozilla 1.7.2 without the
mail client, chat client and so on. The 8sec figure is an approximation
I have in my head. I will time it tomorrow.
Ok the lack of mail/chat/kitchensink client might help, as there'd
be less to read from disk at startup. It would indeed almost sound
like Firefox ;-) which is said to have very nice startup times.
I don't have any system handy to test this atm.
7384
days inactive
7386
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Eric Dondelinger -
Pascal.Steichen＠linux.lu -
Patrick Kaell -
Thierry Coutelier