I want to put together a cheap ass pc to install linux on. How cheap and lame of a computer can I run linux on? Also I have read that mandrake or something like that is the linux flavor to get am I right?
Printable View
I want to put together a cheap ass pc to install linux on. How cheap and lame of a computer can I run linux on? Also I have read that mandrake or something like that is the linux flavor to get am I right?
you can run as slow of a computer as you want, linux doest have many requirements, just check if everything is compatible with version of it...
mandrake is a good one, many people like it, just do alot of research before choosing which flavor of linux you will install
This is what Ive heard:
486
8 mb RAM
40mb hard drive space
CD rom drive
I could be wrong but this is what one of my teachers told us.
snip!
Linux does not support the Intel 286 and earlier
processors. However, it fully supports the Intel 80386,
80486, Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and Pentium III
processors. Nevertheless, some users feel that their 80386
Linux systems respond sluggishly, particularly when running
X. So, if you want optimum performance, you should
install Linux on a PC having an 80486 processor or
better.
Linux also supports non-Intel processors such as the
Cyrix 6x86 and the AMD K5 and K6. Most Linux users have systems that use Intel chips; if your system uses a
non-Intel chip, you may find it more difficult to
resolve possible problems.
end snip!
Linux supports most IBM compatible pc's and will run with as little as 4MB ram (if you want a slow piece of crap!) and around 100MB of disk space...
As conf1rm3d_kill said - linux will run on just about anything from a 386 onwards, if you want to use a 386 though, you have to compile floating point emulation in the kernel - its not too hard and some distros do it for you - i've put debian slink onto a couple of 386's, it takes a while to boot but its alright - you can download it here - http://www.debian.org/releases/slink/.
Mandrake is a pretty good distro, it includes a lot of tools to make configuration for the newer user easier, i have heard that they patch thier kernel so much its moving away from the mainstream linux kernel - and i'm not sure about its ability to run on the lower spec pc's.
You can also run Red Hat on earlier systems (386s onwards). I had some students install RH7.0 on a 486 (without gui interface which is fine -- as I tell them "Real men use command line!"). I've also built a router/firewall on a Cyris 586 100mhz. It was great except it died after 3 days (but that is a hardware issue yet to be resolved).
That's the thing I like about Linux. Never throw out your old boxes. One of them can be turned into a decent server if you slap on a version of linux/unix on them.
Linux wil run on old machines yes, but a 40 MB harddrive won't get you any graphical interface. KDE will need far more. And if you plan to use Suse it will take way more space.
What about installing redhat on a laptop? I've heard it can be difficult. Also, I love the tutorials.
The smallest system you can run Linux on is a 386 with a floppy drive. The smallest I'm currently running it on is a 386 SLC/25 with 8Mb of core and a 420Mb disk. You don't need FPU emulation just because it's a 386 - only if it's not got a floating point copro (i.e. you don't need emulation if you have a 386DX chip, or a 387 installed on the motherboard).
The smallest system you should reasonably consider running Linux without X on is probably a 486DX with a few hundred megs of disk and at least 8Mb of core, depending on what you want to do with it. If you want to use X at all, a minimum of 16Mb of core and probably a 486DX2/66 (with a faster chip and more core highly recommended) would be sensible. If you're thinking of KDE or GNOME, at /least/ 32Mb of core and a little pentium chip. KDE is reasonably responsive on my P75 with 24Mb of core; GNOME is a little heavier though.
Any MMX pentium with 32Mb or more core will run Linux with X and KDE or GNOME quite nicely.
Oh, and the main problem with Linux on laptops is lack of support for their hardware; they often have funny network, video and sound hardware, among other things. Check the information about Linux hardware support to see if it supports your laptop's gubbins before you install.
- Freon
M$ loses their grip on yet another soul. hahaha.
My advice is to go down to you local used computer shop and browse through their selection.
There is an extremely high chance that anything they have will work just dandy for you. Chances are that you will find all the system you need for pretty damn cheap.
As you evolve into `ine ubergeek' and hone your code fu powers, you may decide to build a really a powerfull box.
Oh, and if you find an Alpha machine and can afford it, by all means buy that damn thing. Alpha's totally rule.
As for Distro's, I say try em all. Start with whatever you get your hands on, but definitely try them all. Each becomes more uniquie with time, so the idea of 'Linux' is becoming a little more vague every new release.
I personaly wound up liking Slackware the best after trying them all. Distro's are a very personal thing for most people so don't be afraid to experiment. javascript:smilie(':D')
I have linux running on a 386 with only 6mb of ram and no hard drive just 2 floppys. but its the crappiest version of linux you can get called quinux.
I suggest you just put together a cheap AMD box...
Like 700 Processer
ASUS MB
256 megs ram
20 gig hd
etc...
shouldn't run you more then 400..
Prat, I dunno but, 400 hundred is more than I got.
I have NetBSD running well on a P120 32MB RAM that someone donated to my cause (the let-me-have-as-many-computers-as-possible cause).
I've had it running on a slower machine for a bit, but I uhh, did something stupid hardware wise, and botched the system. but lets not get into that.
Older computers, like Mittens said make great firewalls. You pop a second nic in there so little tweaks to get it firewalling, and you have yourself a merry little firewall for very little money.
There is also Linux that will run on 68k Macs, so if you find a happy little se30 or something, you could turn it into a kicking little box. MsMittens has yellowdog linux running on a PowerComputing Mac-clone, that is PPC, and those go for a fair price (I am trying to convince my school that they need to give me the 8 or so PowerComputing PowerCenter 150's that they got, because that way I would be able to have a sweet little network).
But I digress. Linux can breath life into almost any old computer you got laying about. It may take a bit of negotiation to get it running, but afterwards you will have neat little toy to play with.
dhej
I haven't had any problems. I've run it on an IBM 390, 390E and A20. There is a little more tweaking in regards to the pcmcia card(s) but otherwise seems no different. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by owen76
What about installing redhat on a laptop? I've heard it can be difficult. Also, I love the tutorials.
You can't know unless you try. I've actually considered buying the school's older laptops to play with linux on them.
Hey! Im pretty new so I'm just wondering, what is X? Everyone keeps refering to it, but never explains what it is. Please do. :)
And what do you all think about having a dual boot of windows 2000, windows xp and redhat linux? Would there be any conflicts? (software/hardware?) Or does that just all depend on the partition you put it on?
well thanks
X generally refers to the X-Windows system or the GUI interface that often comes with Linux. There are two managers for the X-Windows: Gnome and/or KDE. I think most newer users choose Gnome but I could be wrong.
As for dual booting, each OS operates individually. If you are booted into one, the others are not running. I've been happily dual booting for a while using Win2k Adv Serv and RH 7.0. I haven't tried XP but that's for other reasons (I still don't trust that remote registration thingy).
It is recommended that Linux be put on free space rather than partitioned space. Works and runs better.
Hey thanks for enlightning me MsMittens!
:D
KDE is the default desktop for most distro's these days and in my experience, it's better to partition than to use free space, that way, when you re-install m$ or want to try another distro, you can retain your data without a headache, using free space is only a viable option when you want to test Linux not run with it long term. The best lesson I learned was to always make a linux boot disk.Quote:
Originally posted by MsMittens
There are two managers for the X-Windows: Gnome and/or KDE. I think most newer users choose Gnome but I could be wrong.
<snip>
It is recommended that Linux be put on free space rather than partitioned space. Works and runs better.
:cool:
Jamie.
We shouldn't forget about some of the light weight window managers - icewm, twm, windowmaker, evilwm - do a search on souceforge for window manager and you'll be surprised at the vast array - and not all of them are memory eating hogs a la KDE (i should add - if your system can support it, KDE is a great window manager!)
Sticking with the subject && commenting on the interesting subject of window managers, that is truly one of the really great things about *nix. I have always thought that it was so cool that you have so many choices; choices that can be conformed to what resources you have available if you need.
If you are running an 'el cheapo' PC with barely any resources, I might suggest Blackbox. I run it on a laptop w/ K-6 and 32MB ram and it is very crisp and responsive. The downside for newbies is that you ahve to hand edit your menu's. The upside for newbies is that you have to hand edit your menu's (i.e. learn where your programs live :D )
Last thing... I would agree with prat in that if you have say $600.00 U.S. to spend on a box you can build a pretty sweet system shopping ebay and picewatch etc.. I would recommend a 21" monitor to anyone who uses *nix, while you don't need one it is amazing how much better running X at 1600x1200 is for real estate reasons.
sorry for the long reply, hope this helped someone.
If you want to run a full blown linux system a 233 is ok but big memory counts. to run it comfortably you need at least 128 meg, these days that only 30 dollars. The command line is great for everything except browsing the net. I know i'll catch some flack for this, but lynx sucks. Unless you want to spend all your time on sites made for lynx. You have to arrow your way to every link and on commercial sites that means a lot-o-links. I never realized how many links there were on a page until i used it. Also theres no graphics and i like a site that pleases me visually. Although, last i heard Arachne was coming out with a linux version and thats pretty cool.