jeanrev Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 I am looking for a safe Linux distribution to propose to the owners of a PC with Windows 98SE I think that a link on this Mandrake site to such a distribution could improve the image of Linux in the world How a newbie can locate and test all the actual Linux versions ? Does this mean that Linux never had a distribution to be compared to WIN98SE This is a serious question apparently without any clear answer Thank you for your attention Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidzoo Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Well.... IMO (and many others) any distro is better than Win98. Determine what they're looking for, and you can easily replicate it with any Linux distro. I recommend Mandrake. It's easy to set up, and you can set it up to have 1 set of programs to do each function instead of many. If you're interested in seeing what all of the distros out there are, head to http://www.linux.org or http://www.distrowatch.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeanrev Posted May 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 I AM JUST INTERESTED IN ONE NAMED LINUX DISTRIBUTION ABLE TO FIT ON A PC INSTEAD OF WIN98SE (or together with it) Can you name the address where I can download it ? thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeanrev Posted May 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 I have been to the addresses you mentioned before but I am unable to select the stable distro supposed to operate on the same type of PC that runs WIN98SE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoopy Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Does this mean that Linux never had a distribution to be compared to WIN98SE Not sure I understand this question, but... Right now I sit typing this with MDK 10. I could be using that computer to my left that happens to have 98 on it. No, there is no comparison... Mandy kicks butt. :D (although, in this case, the mandrake box has more RAM and bigger CPU ) I also have win2k in the same box as Mandrake. I would consider the two sorta equal in that it all depends to the job at hand. AS for a similiar Mandrake to win98, looking at the minimum hardware requirements... maybe Mandrake 8.2... or 8.0 (not 8.1... it had problems) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeanrev Posted May 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 I have tried to install the MDK 9.1 in command line and stopped during the installation of the mail system and browser system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeanrev Posted May 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Somebody proposed to send me an old copy of MDK 8.2 and I would be glad to try it Of course the problem with an old computer is memory and speed to handle the new distros but millions of human being especially in developping countries have the need of a light distro thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoopy Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 I believe 9.1 needs like 256 K RAM. Does this machine have this? Let's post this machine's hardware. This will give us all a chance to suggest the best possible Linux OS for it. I am also moving this to the Installing forum, seeing that would be more fitting then here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeanrev Posted May 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 The machine is 233 Mhz, 2Go HD and 32 Mo RAM The only part WIN98SE cannot manage safely is the mail and internet connection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 jeanrev I deleted my inbox by mistake and lost your address. Just pm me again and Ill send you the 8.2 DVD. (Im presuming you have a DVD reader to use during install) The only part which concerns me performance wise is the 32MB RAM... What RAM is it...? have you any empty slots..(I have a cupbaord full of junk!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 SD Ram I guess... or EDO. If it's EDO I have some too (I still use the SD...) If you can put 64Mb or more, I think 10.0 is better: its faster than 9.2 witch was faster than 9.1 with... 8.2 ? I think so. Anyway 8.2 was very good too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Roland is right... the only real difference now is memory usage. Linux LOVES memory. My 1GB machine at home uses ALL 1GB becuase the unused is used to cache the disk. Some version of mansdrake started the isolinix install. the criteria of using this is I think 64MB RAM becuase it loads into memory FIRST. It doesnt use the disk becuase it still doesnt know if it will be over writing the disk or not. I understand you just want email and internet ??? Is that correct.... An alternative is a Debian Woody install. (very stable) with the minimum. You are comparing only cvertain features of the OS which are important to YOU.... thats OK but its not a whole story. 8.2 has apache/mail servers etc. if you choose em. One area for linux which would be very interesting is a distro exactly for your needs. Even just an internet browsing box for minimal machines. It doesnt need X so long as its got a frame buffer browser and shows graphics.... When you install make sure its minimal.... Remember Win98 was written in 98 and even the ME 4 yrs ago when mem was much more expensive. Now the cost of your machine is not calcualtable..... Its a shame becuase many 3rd world countries could benefit but the problem is the price of parts when you can walk into a shop and buy a whole new 2Ghz+ machine for <400 euro... I ended up buying my Dad a XP machine for XMAS because his old 98 machine had spyware, bugs and allsorts... It just wasnt worth the hassle .... This old machine was similar to yours except it had 64MB RAM,... I ran a debian on in it and now its a router/firewall/web/mail server. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphitus Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 what about Fedora? its based of red hat (ok ok, not directly so dont shoot me rh fans) which has been known to have lower hardware reqs. Heck, arent the packages i486 or i386? iphitus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Slackware Debian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 I beleive ML-9.0 required 64MB and 9.1 required 128MB RAM but this is not for the text based installs. You can get away with less RAM with a text based install. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.