Comments on: What new OS? WattOS! http://www.everyjoe.com/newlinuxuser/what-new-os-wattos/ Linux Tips - Information for Using Linux Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:39:06 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: alvlin http://www.everyjoe.com/newlinuxuser/what-new-os-wattos/comment-page-1/#comment-1001 alvlin Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:23:35 +0000 http://www.newlinuxuser.com/what-new-os-wattos/#comment-1001 I really believe that if you have an old machine and you want it to be running "as if it was new", then you have 2 options: 1.- Run the OS it was actually running when it was "new" (probably Win98) 2.- Get to learn what you are doing and install a GOOD distribution only with what you really need. This "lightweight" distributions are only strip-down systems, wouldn't it be nice to install a full-featured system with only the components you really need? With this said, I would recommend Slackware 11. I had it installed and working with XFCE (kind of slow but working) browsing with Opera 9, and with several network services, in a Pentium 2 400Mhz with 198 MB of RAM. Still, is not an awfully old system, but it worked fine. And I have a full and modern system installed (well, not that modern considering that Slack 11 is not the current version anymore) and supported. I think Linux distributions have been getting 'fatter' with time. Maybe we need people porting the better features without all the graphic and cpu requirements: Linux used to be a good alternative in old systems, nowadays a Windows XP system is faster and have features that match any of the newer Linux distros. I can install Windows XP in a system with a 800MHz processor and 265MB of RAM, but I can't do the same with a new linux distribution. I know XP has already more than 6 years in the market, but its feature set is not obsolete. It is sad to think that if I have that machine, I should be thinking on installing XP before thinking on installing the last Ubuntu. Maybe this is something we should think about, instead of creating distributions for "obsolete" hardware. I really believe that if you have an old machine and you want it to be running “as if it was new”, then you have 2 options:
1.- Run the OS it was actually running when it was “new” (probably Win98)
2.- Get to learn what you are doing and install a GOOD distribution only with what you really need.

This “lightweight” distributions are only strip-down systems, wouldn’t it be nice to install a full-featured system with only the components you really need?
With this said, I would recommend Slackware 11. I had it installed and working with XFCE (kind of slow but working) browsing with Opera 9, and with several network services, in a Pentium 2 400Mhz with 198 MB of RAM.

Still, is not an awfully old system, but it worked fine. And I have a full and modern system installed (well, not that modern considering that Slack 11 is not the current version anymore) and supported.

I think Linux distributions have been getting ‘fatter’ with time. Maybe we need people porting the better features without all the graphic and cpu requirements: Linux used to be a good alternative in old systems, nowadays a Windows XP system is faster and have features that match any of the newer Linux distros. I can install Windows XP in a system with a 800MHz processor and 265MB of RAM, but I can’t do the same with a new linux distribution.
I know XP has already more than 6 years in the market, but its feature set is not obsolete.
It is sad to think that if I have that machine, I should be thinking on installing XP before thinking on installing the last Ubuntu.

Maybe this is something we should think about, instead of creating distributions for “obsolete” hardware.

]]>