replaced Win2K with Ubuntu
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: replaced Win2K with Ubuntu

  1. #1
    Disgruntled Postal Worker fourdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    797

    replaced Win2K with Ubuntu

    I recently became aware that Ubunto Linux could be set up to run *.wmv files. The last hold out that kept me from replacing Win2k pro on my "ancient" (4 years old off lease box).

    I set up Ubuntu 7.04 (fiesty faun) on the box and tried to run a wmv, it politely told me it had to find a codec. After it found the codecs I authorized it to install and viola I had a laptop with a fresh operating system that could do everything I wanted.

    This process could not have been easier. The laptop is a Dell 610, 1ghz pentium 3M with a 40g hdd and 256 M ram. It was a long download on my 800k dsl connection.

    I post this not to brag but to possibly reduce some of the FUD that goes with breaking the connection with MS when you can't upgrade your equipment or your disposable spending can't support the constant upgrade of MS products.
    ddddc

    "Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot

  2. #2
    Senior Member t34b4g5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Australia.
    Posts
    2,391

    Thumbs up

    Why didn't you just order the CD's from the Ubuntu website? would of saved you having to download the .iso.

    https://shipit.ubuntu.com

    the shipping is free, the cd's are free also. Plus you can order as many as you like and hand them out to your friends also.

    also as you said your machine is "outdated" does Ubuntu run good on your machine's spec's? or does it lag with some things? what about loading times, does it load and feel more responsive then what your win2k install did? And what made you choose Ubuntu for the replacement of your previous Operating System?

  3. #3
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    Well that isn't something I would do, but each to his own........... In my opinion Windows 2000 is one of MS's better attempts.

    There is a lot of FUD in the "requirements" area of OSes in my experience. As a "general rule" I accept what the Linux boys tell us about their distros. This is normally what they believe will give you an enjoyable computing experience.

    In the case of Microsoft I would take their "minimum requirement" and double it at least.

    Windows 2000 will run quite happily on a PII/233 with 128Mb of RAM, although I would prefer a PII/266 with 256Mb.

    Ubuntu v7 is recommended to run on a 700MHz processor with 256Mb of RAM.

    My OS of choice for low end machines is still Windows 2000.

    I would not consider Windows XP to be an "upgrade" for ddddc's box, as it doesn't have enough RAM.

    Where I do see a choice being made is the next shift............ like Vista is totally out of the question for a lot of existing systems, due to its extreme resource requirements.

    This leaves you with some choices:

    1. Stick with what you have (not as absurd as you may think, there are plenty of home & SOHO users I know who still use Win 98SE)

    2. Buy new kit (a total system) and run Vista. Whilst upgrading is theoretically possible, it probably doesn't make economic sense for lower end equipment.

    3. Boot Linux.

    I have a fair collection of systems dating back as far as 1982, and looking at the "non-museum" items, I would say the following:

    PI/133MHz/320Mb.......32Mb PCI Video.............this could upgrade to Win 2000.

    PI/150MHz/96Mb, PCI Graphics (16 or 32Mb?)....... would just about upgrade to Win 2000.

    PII/ 266, 333, 450 MHz/ 384Mb............. Would upgrade to Win 2000 and possibly Linux. All have PCI graphics cards BTW.

    PIII/533MHz/512Mb Would upgrade to Win XP, Win 2000 and Linux.

    P4 1.7GHz, 768Mb RAMBUS PC800, 64Mb DDR graphics card........... would upgrade to Win 2000, XP or Linux.

    Duron 1.3GHz, 512Mb PC 2100, 32Mb Graphics card............would upgrade to Win 2000, XP or Linux.

    My more modern equipment would upgrade to Vista but at a price, none of the stuff above really would.
    Last edited by nihil; May 29th, 2007 at 04:09 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member alakhiyar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Land of Oryx
    Posts
    255
    What do you do with your P3 laptop?

    I have a old version of Ubuntu (can't remember the version). Was think of installing it on my old athlon 900 when I find the cd.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  5. #5
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    Incidentally, there are Linux distros intended for low resource setups. I believe Ubuntu do one called "Xubuntu" or something similar?


  6. #6
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    For older systems I'd go with Slackware or FreeBSD, they still run on 486s. For GUI stuff though, it depends what you use. Gnome and KDE are going to eat up RAM, and Enlightenment could, but I have gotten it to run fine on a 433 MHz Celeron with 192 MBs RAM.

    FVWM2 would run probably the same on a 486 as it would on a Pentium, or even P2, and there are others with less eye candy that can go back to the 486 machines and be fine on.

    It would be nice if someone made a TUI for BSD and Linux other than the almost full TUI Midnight Commander. But not just a shell, but a full UI that has menus and allows you to run apps from it as that would really allow more older hardware to get back in use and it would be faster than a full GUI.

  7. #7
    Disgruntled Postal Worker fourdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    797
    The laptop is used for internet access while traveling, mostly email or recreational surfing, (the *.wmv file capability was a huge requirement.) I also use it for display of pictures and video, when I want to bore people with my home movies LOL.

    I chose ubuntu because I had the Cheapbytes CD set for version 6 (edgy eft), after loading I bit the bullet and upgraded to newer version hence the long download. Ubuntu is also a very easy load, I've done Slackware (pre 2.0), Redhat and Suse IMHO Ubuntu is the easiest to load

    We have ubuntu running on of our desktops on our home lan, we also have a suse 10.2 as well as win xp on boxes on that lan as well. My son and I have built quite an interesting mix of OSs.

    Ubuntu runs great on the laptop (it also runs great on the desktop P3, 1.2g, 512M) its a lot faster booting than the W2000 pro was.

    I'm not a high end power user on these systems I own, I'm not a gamer and really don't need nose bleed, white knuckle speed. The move from W2000 was driven by the impending EOL that is no doubt coming if not already here for that OS
    ddddc

    "Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot

  8. #8
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    The move from W2000 was driven by the impending EOL that is no doubt coming if not already here for that OS
    Its a good bet to think that won't happen until Vista's successor is released. Another 3 to 4 years?
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  9. #9
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    Hmmm,

    Last I heard the EOL for Win 2000 was the end of 2010 and for Win XP was sometime in 2014

  10. #10
    Disgruntled Postal Worker fourdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    797
    A brief view of the the MS web site showed the 2010 date for W2000 SP4 for security hotfixes only. Other "complimentary" upgrades have already run out. There will be no SP5.

    Maybe I'm jumping the gun a little, but hey the move was painless and the laptop is running faster for what I use it for, someone elses "mileage" may vary.

    I recently parted with 2 Tandy 100 "notebook computers", real antiques running ms-basic with 37k ram. Ran on 4 AA batteries. Sold for about $60 on Ebay.
    ddddc

    "Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot

Similar Threads

  1. Windows 2000 Tips
    By Nokia in forum Tips and Tricks
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 12th, 2004, 06:13 PM
  2. Ms Server Under Attack
    By sweet_angel in forum Microsoft Security Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 31st, 2003, 08:38 AM
  3. win2k registration
    By IKnowNot in forum Microsoft Security Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 30th, 2003, 08:08 AM
  4. redhat 8 / win2k NTFS share / gateway troubles....
    By mrleachy in forum *nix Security Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 9th, 2002, 11:20 AM
  5. Need to Run Win95/NT software on Win2K.
    By NisusMage in forum Non-Security Archives
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 18th, 2002, 04:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •