Most Suitable Linux Software

Hopster_2

Slim wrote: »

I've been given an old Evesham laptop which is running extremely slowly on Windows XP professional. Processor details are - Mobile Athlon XP-M 2200+, 1.79GHz with 224 MB RAM.(Hard drive 37GB with 28GB free)

What is the most suitable Linux software to initially try out from a DVD and if happy to install as a hard disk replacement for XP. First thoughts are the Maya Mint KDE with Cinnamon desktop environment or is this too large?

I'm only of average or below computer literate and I don't want to try reinstalling XP.

Many thanks.

This thread is probably a lot to take in mate, there is a lot of good advice and a lot of mixed messages and a would imagine your head is burst by now.

You said you wanted to try Linux on a DVD to give it a test drive which is fair enough, but it doesn't really give you an accurate feel of how Linux will perform on your old machine..
Its well known that Linux performs much better on old machines and although Linux has improved on hardware drivers, it can still be tricky to solve problems, for a new user it can often be enough to make them give up.

The problem with Linux is usually the Windows users expect it to be like Windows, its not, Linux users often get carried away and neglect to inform users that its quite a steep learning curve.
Its entirely different as its not a commercial driven OS, in many respects its better and in some cases its worse..
You need to ask yourself, do i want to learn a new way of using my laptop or do i have any other options.

If you want to learn a new OS then thats fine, if you put the effort into it then i am sure you will be happy.
If you don't want to learn then you have 2 options left!

Option 1 would be to customize your XP install disc using Nlite, I have used this program a lot over the years but it involves learning how to remove the right things and can often fail if you have never used it before.

Option 2 would be to use a version of XP that's already trimmed down and gives you advanced options of including/excluding IE, WMP and also gives you extra driver packs if required.
A don't think i am allowed to mention the exact name but lets say its "tiny" and its "xp".
It will run easily on 250mb ram with AV and other programs loaded.
It will auto install without annoying prompts for entering keys and setting up region etc.
It can also be updated from Windows, so you can download all security patches or additional MS software that requires validation..

You can find it in all the usual places using Google..
If you need any advice then send me a pm and il help out..

Kernel_Sanders

Hopster wrote: »

If you don't want to learn then you have 2 options left!

I might have identified a third, as this thread has inspired me to do a little more research on my own problem. How about XP-Like Puppy? I've just downloaded the .iso as it's less than 150MB and includes WINE. I want to run it from a CD and save each session to the same CD as stated here
Final note in using CD: you can also save to the same CD that you booted from but the CD containing Puppy must be burned initially as "not final", i.e., that more files can be added to it; advanced CD burning software can do this in Windows, and Puppy has BurnISO2cd for this
Do they think it's obvious that they are are referring to a CD-RW, or do they think it's obvious that the 'write once' restriction of a CD-R can be overcome by this burn method?

walesrob

To be fair, Linux distros have developed in such a way, conversion from Windows is no longer a scary prospect it once was. I've used Ubuntu a few times, and on the first installation, it was very easy to set up and use, seemed really straightforward.

esuhl

walesrob wrote: »

I've used Ubuntu a few times, and on the first installation, it was very easy to set up and use, seemed really straightforward.

Most Linux distros are straightforward to set up. And using pre-installed applications is trivially easy... But when you want to install custom drivers, recompile the kernel with custom modules, set up different hardware profiles, use multiple window managers and desktop environments, reinstall the OS whilst preserving your customisation, etc., Ubuntu is a nightmare. It's far too bloated and tries to shield the user from what's going on. Trying to get it to work as you want is nigh on impossible!

Ironically, Arch (which has a reputation as being too tricky for beginners) is by far the simplest distro I've used. You start with almost nothing installed and add only the packages you want. The wiki guides you through configuring everything manually, so not only does your PC work (more-or-less) exactly how you want, you had to edit the configuration files by hand so you know what settings are available and where you change them. Arch is kept continually up-to-date by a rolling release model, unlike Ubuntu which releases separate installers and expects you to re-install the OS from scratch when a new version comes out.

It really depends what you want to do, what you expect, and how willing you are to sacrifice manual control for automation (or vice versa). And it's great that there are so many different Linux distros to choose from (assuming you don't want to compile your own from source).

Ubuntu is great for someone who doesn't know much about Linux (and doesn't want to), has a modern PC that can cope with the bloat, and just wants to get a desktop system up-and-running with no intention of doing anything esoteric.

If you want to be able to get your head round what's going on "under the bonnet", maintain your system effectively, know how to change every conceivable setting, never want to reinstall the OS when a new version is released, and gradually learn a bit about how Linux works, Ubuntu will probably drive you crazy! It's so overcomplicated! Arch, on the other hand, is the simplest most elegant distro I've seen.

Different strokes and all that...

Kernel_Sanders

esuhl wrote: »

... gradually learn a bit about how Linux works

Whenever I've tried to learn I invariably find that the writer has missed or failed to explain some vital bit of information which they think the learner could not possibly be unaware of. A classic example is detailed in my previous post (#23).

esuhl

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

Whenever I've tried to learn I invariably find that the writer has missed or failed to explain some vital bit of information which they think the learner could not possibly be unaware of. A classic example is detailed in my previous post (#23).

Yeah... I definitely think that you need a little prerequisite knowledge in order to be able to use Linux. You don't need to know a lot; you don't need to have it all memorised (thanks, Google!), but just a tiny bit of understanding about the basics will really help you slot everything else into place.

And that's the problem with Ubuntu, IMHO. If you shield the user from the fundamentals, they are NEVER going to understand what's going on. You can't administer an operating system like that! Sure, if it's all set up for you (like a default installation of Ubuntu) you're fine... until you need to ask the sysadmin how to do X... and you realise that YOU are the sysadmin and you suddenly need to learn EVERYTHING that Ubuntu tries to hide from you... layer upon layer of nonsense just so that the "user" doesn't have to get their hands dirty. Not such a great idea if you are sysadmin AND user.

If you install something like Arch, you'll need a tiny bit more basic knowledge, and you'll just have to accept that (if you aren't a Linux guru) you WILL be confused at some point and WILL need to do your own research to resolve a problem. But... in Arch there is pretty much one way to do things: you change the relevant config file and that's it. You don't have multitudes of fancy graphical applications all competing to modify text files automatically (inevitably corrupting them in the process)...

So... if you aren't interested in how the OS works... for goodness' sake, use Windows! It's horrific for the idealist techie, but great for the disinterested user: it certainly gets the job done with the minimum of fuss.

As I said before... different strokes and all that... I love Windows for its ease of use and "hit the ground running" simplicity. But if you want a computer to do exactly what you want, Linux is SO MUCH better.

Ubuntu seems to be the worst of both worlds... It's not as "easy-to-use" as Windows, yet it doesn't make systems administration easy either. I can't imagine why anyone would choose it unless the only reason was because it's free. But the figures speak for themselves... Ubuntu is one of the most popular Linux distros ever...

Kernel_Sanders

That's just about the most intuitive post I've ever read on these boards; I now see why you have been trying to promote this distro. Along with the earlier revelation that the whole OS never has to be reinstalled due to obsolesence, this paragraph in particular

esuhl wrote: »

If you install something like Arch, you'll need a tiny bit more basic knowledge, and you'll just have to accept that (if you aren't a Linux guru) you WILL be confused at some point and WILL need to do your own research to resolve a problem. But... in Arch there is pretty much one way to do things: you change the relevant config file and that's it. You don't have multitudes of fancy graphical applications all competing to modify text files automatically (inevitably corrupting them in the process)

got me thinkng that maybe Arch might be the most suitable OS for me when XP becomes unsupported. But it isn't a case of not wanting to spend time researching, it's more a matter of capability. I'm still struggling to get my head round the Linux tree (please don't expend more time explaining, people have already tried to impart this knowledge in exquisite detail on here!) However, if I can get my 3 mobile dongle to work with XP-like Puppy with WINE and use that for a few months, I may be able to familiarize myself with Linux enough to tackle Arch.
The only working PC I have at this address has a 20GB HDD filled with XP and no USB 2.0 or DVD drive so I want to run Puppy from a CD. Can anyone tell me please if this would have to be a CD-RW disc in order to save each subsequent session to it, and is this the same as 'persistence'?

GunJack

you can save the puppy save file to the hdd in the machine...as long as you have 0.75 gb free on the hdd, that's 50% more than you will need, puppy optimum save file is .5 gb. And if you do that, when you load it up you don't need to re-configure anything

Slim

Thank you all for taking the time and trouble to reply and for all your suggestions.

I've plumped for Zorin OS 6 Lite and so far it's OK although very early days. I've also ordered a USB WiFi Wireless Adapter to use on the laptop and I suspect getting this to work may be interesting.

If Zorin proves beyond my I think I'll try Hopster's option 2 suggestion ie XP and Tiny. I'd never heard of this before.

Thanks again for all the help.

patman99

Fyi, I recently had to sort-out 2 EeePC 701 netbooks (the ones with only 4Gb of storage). They were running Xandros, but would not connect to the 3 MiFi that had been purchased in order to allow us to access OSM from the Scout Hall.
I managed to obtain and install the latest version of Xandros. This allowed me to connect to a WPA secured network, but as the distro only had Firefox 3.0 (with no updates available), OSM still remained unusable.

I tried many distros (including trying to do a custom build based on 'Arch'). In the end, the only one that would sucessfully install and run was 'Mint V 11'. Not only did this work straight out of the box (so to speak), but installed a load of updates including FireFox 13.
Mint was happy to connect to the MiFi first-time out without any reconfiguring. The following week we tried it on a BT mobile BB dongle and once again, no issues. It connected with a couple of mouse clicks.

How easy is it for a Windows user to adapt to Linux ?. Well, 3 Scout Leaders managed to use the netbook to access and use OSM with only an enquirey as to the log-on details. No-one even questioned the change of OS.

The days of having to 'poke-and-prod' to get Linux to work with devices that previously only worked uner Windows are very much in the past (except of course, 'Ubuntu', which tends to come stripped of useful drivers which then need to be hand-inserted to get stuff to work properly).