What does it take to run Linux?

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Derric » Tue, 11 Aug 1998 04:00:00



I currently use Win98 (yeah, yeah, it sucks, I know, but my girlfriend likes
to be able to actually use it without studying a 8 pound manual)

I have some spare parts lying around that would enable me to build a TX
chipset, Pentium200MMX(which I guess is worthless to Unix/Linux OS's), 2.1GB
HDD, 24X CD Rom, and about 32 meg of memory....(I'll probably purchase more
and have 64meg)

Now this is fine for Win95/98/NT, but is it good enough for Linux?

I hope to utilize this exciting new OS and need some input

Thanks, guys/gals for your time

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Tim Brigg » Tue, 11 Aug 1998 04:00:00



> I currently use Win98 (yeah, yeah, it sucks, I know, but my girlfriend likes
> to be able to actually use it without studying a 8 pound manual)

Understandable, although a linux system can be configured to be as easy. My
wife uses linux now, and is happier for doing so. She is more adept than some,
but by no means a techie.

Quote:> I have some spare parts lying around that would enable me to build a TX
> chipset, Pentium200MMX(which I guess is worthless to Unix/Linux OS's), 2.1GB
> HDD, 24X CD Rom, and about 32 meg of memory....(I'll probably purchase more
> and have 64meg)
> Now this is fine for Win95/98/NT, but is it good enough for Linux?

Wow, I only have a P100 :) Linux runs wonderfully on it, faster than 95/98 ever
would. Plus, unlike the MS stuff, it boots/runs just as fast no matter how many
apps you install (unless they require a service to start at init, which isn't
typical)

Quote:> I hope to utilize this exciting new OS and need some input

> Thanks, guys/gals for your time

Good Luck!

Tim

My opinions are mine alone, and do not reflect those of my employer.

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Timothy J. L » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00


|I have some spare parts lying around that would enable me to build a TX
|chipset, Pentium200MMX(which I guess is worthless to Unix/Linux OS's), 2.1GB
|HDD, 24X CD Rom, and about 32 meg of memory....(I'll probably purchase more
|and have 64meg)
|
|Now this is fine for Win95/98/NT, but is it good enough for Linux?

Linux is generally less resource hungry than recent Microsoft OSes.
Even a 486 computer with 16 MB of memory will run Linux reasonably
(though it'll be slow when recompiling the kernel or something like
that).

Just beware of some things like WinModems that don't work well with
Linux.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.             netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Tracy R Re » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00



>I currently use Win98 (yeah, yeah, it sucks, I know, but my girlfriend likes
>to be able to actually use it without studying a 8 pound manual)

My girlfriend uses Linux. She never had to study a thing. She clicks on her
application and it starts up. Piece of cake. She likes it better than Windows.

Quote:>I have some spare parts lying around that would enable me to build a TX
>chipset, Pentium200MMX(which I guess is worthless to Unix/Linux OS's), 2.1GB
>HDD, 24X CD Rom, and about 32 meg of memory....(I'll probably purchase more
>and have 64meg)

>Now this is fine for Win95/98/NT, but is it good enough for Linux?

If it's good enough for win95, it's definitely good enough for Linux. A machine
like that could be a pretty decent server for a medium sized office.

--
Tracy Reed      http://www.ultraviolet.org
Sorry, please try again. Thank you for taking the Turing test.

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Matt Magnasc » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00




>I currently use Win98 (yeah, yeah, it sucks, I know, but my girlfriend likes
>to be able to actually use it without studying a 8 pound manual)

>I have some spare parts lying around that would enable me to build a TX
>chipset, Pentium200MMX(which I guess is worthless to Unix/Linux OS's), 2.1GB
>HDD, 24X CD Rom, and about 32 meg of memory....(I'll probably purchase more
>and have 64meg)

>Now this is fine for Win95/98/NT, but is it good enough for Linux?

>I hope to utilize this exciting new OS and need some input

Congratulations in coming to the Light Side.  Any machine that can run
Winbloat98 at X performance can run Linux at X^2 or X^3 performance.
I've got a P2/233 and Linux just screams along.  It's been running the RC5
cracker for over 4 months, and I haven't even noticed it.

The first machine I ever ran Linux on was a 486/33 with 8 megs of
memory.  It got upgraded to 12 megs and I overclocked it to 40 MHz, and
X Windows ran like a charm (previously, I only used the CLI part of
Linux).  X now runs like heaven.  So if a 486/40 and 12 megs was
sufficient to run Netscape, a P200 with 32 megs should be perfect.
--
    *--> ocsangaM ttaM <--*--> teriyaki.resnet.gatech.edu/matt <--*
  *GRADUATING* CE senior at Ga. Tech, Ruler of the Universe, Fiend, RTA
 Keep the spam out of your own email box!!!  | I don't live in WA state.
Tell your Congressman to vote NO on HR3888!! | I don't want spam either.

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Fragg » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00



>I currently use Win98 (yeah, yeah, it sucks, I know, but my girlfriend likes
>to be able to actually use it without studying a 8 pound manual)

You can set up Linux to be just as easy as Windows.

Quote:>I have some spare parts lying around that would enable me to build a TX
>chipset, Pentium200MMX(which I guess is worthless to Unix/Linux OS's), 2.1GB
>HDD, 24X CD Rom, and about 32 meg of memory....(I'll probably purchase more
>and have 64meg)

>Now this is fine for Win95/98/NT, but is it good enough for Linux?

Linux will run on a 386 with 4mb ram. Personally, I run Linux on a Pentium 75.
I am also going to buy a second hand 486. Linux is faster than Windows. A
Pentium 200MMX will *fly* on Linux.

Where did you get the impression that Linux required a lot of processing power?

--
Year, n.:
        A period of three hundred and sixty-five disappointments.
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Donovan Rebbech » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00



> Now this is fine for Win95/98/NT, but is it good enough for Linux?

a 386 with 4MB is good enough for linux itself. The resource
requirements depend on what you're doing with it. If you're hosting
Netscape.com  , you might need a better machine (-:

However, generally, 16MB is what it takes to run X reasonably well, with
a Window manager that's not too ugly. with 16MB you can run things like
Netscape 4 and gimp, though with these larger apps, it gets a little
slow (but not unbearably so)
32MB is enough to run any linux application (that I can think of). Your
CPU is also fine. Check the Hardware compatibility HOWTO to make sure
that everything matches up . Usually video cards are the most
problematic. Also check soundcards carefully and avoid winmodems.  

--

http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Web designer for Independence -- Linux for the Masses
http://www.independence.seul.org/

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Cameron Spitze » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00





>Wow, I only have a P100 :) Linux runs wonderfully on it, faster than 95/98 ever
>would. Plus, unlike the MS stuff, it boots/runs just as fast no matter how many
>apps you install (unless they require a service to start at init, which isn't
>typical)

I found Netscape is a lot snappier if you start xfs (The X Window System Font Server)
for it at boot time.  But that's the only "service" the apps seem to notice.
Of course under Linux the overhead of a sleeping daemon is practically nothing.
You can leave the Web server (everybody needs their own personal Web server!)
running all the time and it will not get in the way.

Cameron
--
What's all this about:mozilla stuff, anyway?

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by FoulDrag » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>The first machine I ever ran Linux on was a 486/33 with 8 megs of
>memory.  It got upgraded to 12 megs and I overclocked it to 40 MHz, and
>X Windows ran like a charm (previously, I only used the CLI part of
>Linux).  X now runs like heaven.  So if a 486/40 and 12 megs was
>sufficient to run Netscape, a P200 with 32 megs should be perfect.

My first Linux box was a 486/80 with 8Mb of memory and a UMSDOS filesystem.  I
found X a little slow, and upgraded to 20Mb RAM and ext2 just in time for KDE
beta 3 to sink it.  Weird thing is it ran that comparably to how the 48Mb
K6/233 o/c 250 runs 1.0 now.... of course, to get work done on 16... or even
8Mb of memory, Linux thrashes Win9x [esp. with IE4 as shell].
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii (Clan Nightwings)
members.xoom.com/marada
'A black dragoness and a 250MHz AMD K6 are all that stand between someone and
insanity-- a new story, or just my life?'
DC.mD CDm e--- WL++* L280cm sRL-- sVR++ BSu
 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Peter Granrot » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00



> I currently use Win98 (yeah, yeah, it sucks, I know, but my girlfriend likes
> to be able to actually use it without studying a 8 pound manual)

Don't tell me about it. I had to recover my parents computer that died
a horrible death from runnng Win98, so I had to reinstall good ol' 95
on it ;) (I would have installed Debian (a Linux distro) on it too if
I only had had a CD with it)

Quote:> I have some spare parts lying around that would enable me to build a TX
> chipset, Pentium200MMX(which I guess is worthless to Unix/Linux OS's), 2.1GB
> HDD, 24X CD Rom, and about 32 meg of memory....(I'll probably purchase more
> and have 64meg)

> Now this is fine for Win95/98/NT, but is it good enough for Linux?

Linux will run great on it. Linux is much more resource frindly than
Windows so you will have no problems with Linux on your machine. (I
run Linux on an old P133, which is well more than enough to run Linux
smoothly on)

Quote:> I hope to utilize this exciting new OS and need some input

Guess you'll want a couple of links too:

http://www.linuxnow.com/
http://www.linux.org/
http://www.linuxresources.com/
http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/
http://linuxwebmap.ml.org/
http://www.linux-center.org/en/
http://www.falconweb.com/~linuxrx/
http://lwn.net/

and of course, a descriptive picture of the battlefield that is the
operating system industry today:

http://granroth.ml.org/softwarewar.html

guess that will do for a couple hours of reading ;)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
+        Peter Granroth        +  Microsoft is NOT the answer  +

+    http://granroth.ml.org    +       The answer is NO        +
----------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by S S Sturroc » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00



> I currently use Win98 (yeah, yeah, it sucks, I know, but my girlfriend likes
> to be able to actually use it without studying a 8 pound manual)

My wife and several other ex-Windows users I support are using RH5.1
with KDE-1.0 and StarOffice4.0, they are very happy because it does
everything they want to and they know they don't need to live in fear of
it failing all the time.

I have run Linux (slackware) on an old 386/16 with 2MB RAM and it
worked, even got PLIP up so I could communicate.  Did it for a laugh.  A
486/33 is a better minimum for normal use and if you want to run
KDE/StarOffice a Pentium 75 or better with 24MB+ would be more suitable.

Currently I'm running RH on a couple of SPARCs, two alphas and a number
of PCs, along with OpenBSD on a SPARC which just wouldn't run under
current Linux kernels (2.2 will hopefully fix that).

--
Windows *IS* difficult to use.  Difficult in the same way a *ager
is difficult, its immature, unstable and you can never get it to work

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Thand » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00



>I currently use Win98 (yeah, yeah, it sucks, I know, but my girlfriend likes
>to be able to actually use it without studying a 8 pound manual)

>I have some spare parts lying around that would enable me to build a TX
>chipset, Pentium200MMX(which I guess is worthless to Unix/Linux OS's), 2.1GB
>HDD, 24X CD Rom, and about 32 meg of memory....(I'll probably purchase more
>and have 64meg)

>Now this is fine for Win95/98/NT, but is it good enough for Linux?

>I hope to utilize this exciting new OS and need some input

>Thanks, guys/gals for your time

My personal machine is a P200MMX with 32 mb of ram too. I run a dual boot
linux/win 98 on it, and linux is far faster at most tasks than windows. I have
no hesitation recommending anyone with similar hardware use linux (In fact,
just about any hardware, so long as it's supported, would be put to better use
running linux than windows).

As for the ram, I find I can open 4 terminal windows running something,
netscape & emacs with little or no swapping (With 32 meg ram). Windows bogs
down with just a couple of things open. Certainly more ram is never a bad
thing, but by no means is it required.

Good luck, hope you find linux as useful as I do!

- Thandor.

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Mark » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Hmm...I'd like to know your secret. I run Linux on a P100 as well..with
64mbs of ram. ....terminal performance is fine...but X based apps are dog
slow compared to any version of windows...and I mean *DOG* slow. I'm running
an accelerated server as well..
Once X is up and running it's not so bad..but after a week of straight Linux
use..then booting back into NT on the same box..I feel like I'm running a
space ship in terms of GUI speed. I have looked into the reasons for this
and they make sense..but the fact remains that GUI speed in linux is not
even close to windows. And I can't stand windows...just an observation. But
if you install Linux on one of those machines you describe...don't think
something is wrong with your hardware...X will run around three times as
slow as the Win-GDI.

Quote:>Wow, I only have a P100 :) Linux runs wonderfully on it, faster than 95/98
ever
>would. Plus, unlike the MS stuff, it boots/runs just as fast no matter how
many
>apps you

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Donovan Rebbech » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00



> Linux will run on a 386 with 4mb ram. Personally, I run Linux on a Pentium 75.
> I am also going to buy a second hand 486. Linux is faster than Windows. A
> Pentium 200MMX will *fly* on Linux.

the CPU power is really a non issue unless you are planning on video
editing or rendering. For basic use, MEMORY is more important. A pentium
200 will probably not "fly" if it has 8MB of RAM. On the other hand,
*any* pentium (and probably the better end of the 486 line) with >= 32
MB of RAM will fly.

cheers,
--

http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Web designer for Independence -- Linux for the Masses
http://www.independence.seul.org/

 
 
 

What does it take to run Linux?

Post by Noah Vai » Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:00:00



> I currently use Win98 (yeah, yeah, it sucks, I know, but my girlfriend likes
> to be able to actually use it without studying a 8 pound manual)

I'd never let a woman stand between me and my OS.

N.V.
(only half joking)