Dear all,

I just got 2 used intel machines, one P3/500 and one P3/800.

Does anyone have experience about how sensful it would be to install
Mandriva 2009 on these machines?

I did not install it on any pc but I think that at least on the 500MHz
box I should rather install Mandrake 10 instead. This is based on the
assumption that concerning the year of release, Mandriva 2009 has
similar prerequisits like micro$oft vista?

Any hints which OS makes sense installed on which of these two boxes?

Best regards,

Markus

--
Please reply to group only.
For private email please use http://www.dipl-ing-kessler.de/email.htm

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:33:19 +0000, Markus R. Keßler wrote:

> Any hints which OS makes sense installed on which of these two boxes?
>
If you've got 256M ram or more then any should work. Might try a lighter
window manager than KDE though.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:33:19 +0000, Markus R. Keßler wrote:

> Any hints which OS makes sense installed on which of these two boxes?
>
If you've got 256M ram or more then any should work. Might try a lighter
window manager than KDE though.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:33:19 +0000, Markus R. Keßler wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I just got 2 used intel machines, one P3/500 and one P3/800.
>
> Does anyone have experience about how sensful it would be to install
> Mandriva 2009 on these machines?
>
> I did not install it on any pc but I think that at least on the 500MHz
> box I should rather install Mandrake 10 instead. This is based on the
> assumption that concerning the year of release, Mandriva 2009 has
> similar prerequisits like micro$oft vista?
>
> Any hints which OS makes sense installed on which of these two boxes?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Markus

I'm using an old 1.0Ghz P3 with 768Kb RAM and 2009.0 runs just fine, even
with KDE4.

On Friday 12 December 2008 21:33, someone identifying as *Markus R. Keßler*
wrote in /alt.os.linux.mandrake:/

> Dear all,
>
> I just got 2 used intel machines, one P3/500 and one P3/800.
>
> Does anyone have experience about how sensful it would be to install
> Mandriva 2009 on these machines?

No experience, but it should work, provided that the machines have enough
RAM, as the others have said. 256 MB would be a minimum if you plan on
using KDE or Gnome, but I recommend 512 MB.

> I did not install it on any pc but I think that at least on the 500MHz
> box I should rather install Mandrake 10 instead. This is based on the
> assumption that concerning the year of release, Mandriva 2009 has
> similar prerequisits like micro$oft vista?

Nah, only Micro$oft is that crazy. :p

> Any hints which OS makes sense installed on which of these two boxes?

GNU/Linux. :p What distribution is a matter of taste. :-)

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:53:26 +0000 (UTC), Wes Newell
<w.newell@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:33:19 +0000, Markus R. Keߟler wrote:
>
>> Any hints which OS makes sense installed on which of these two boxes?
>>

>If you've got 256M ram or more then any should work. Might try a lighter
>window manager than KDE though.

All of my machines have at least 1/4 GB RAM. And as I see there's
always some space left and is used as cache. But, as you confirm, KDE
is the bottleneck. In textmode, when run as a dedicated server the
machines runs fine, but it's an agony to wait until KDE is loaded.

I already tried some others like ICE WM but I could not see any
advantage. When I remember correctly then Mandrake 10.1 comes along
with KDE 3. I think KDE 4 is even more overloaded and thus slower?

Is Gnome better / faster?

Best regards,

Markus

--
Please reply to group only.
For private email please use http://www.dipl-ing-kessler.de/email.htm

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:11:46 +0100, Aragorn
<aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:

>On Friday 12 December 2008 21:33, someone identifying as *Markus R. Keßler*
>wrote in /alt.os.linux.mandrake:/
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I just got 2 used intel machines, one P3/500 and one P3/800.
>>
>> Does anyone have experience about how sensful it would be to install
>> Mandriva 2009 on these machines?
>
>No experience, but it should work, provided that the machines have enough
>RAM, as the others have said. 256 MB would be a minimum if you plan on
>using KDE or Gnome, but I recommend 512 MB.

Even when working with Scribus and some other applications
simultaneously the total consumption of RAM is rarely higher than
220..240MB. In most cases there's even some 50..80MB of RAM cached.

>> I did not install it on any pc but I think that at least on the 500MHz
>> box I should rather install Mandrake 10 instead. This is based on the
>> assumption that concerning the year of release, Mandriva 2009 has
>> similar prerequisits like micro$oft vista?
>
>Nah, only Micro$oft is that crazy. :p
>
>> Any hints which OS makes sense installed on which of these two boxes?
>
>GNU/Linux. :p What distribution is a matter of taste. :-)

Hm, well, when I installed Suse 9 I got the impression that this one
was slower and less agile than Mandrake 10.1

Though I always thought that the version number was meant as a speed
or "hardware requirement index" ;-) So Mandrake 10 should be slower
than Suse 9. But this was not the case.

Best regards,

Markus

--
Please reply to group only.
For private email please use http://www.dipl-ing-kessler.de/email.htm

Markus R. Keßler wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I just got 2 used intel machines, one P3/500 and one P3/800.
>
> Does anyone have experience about how sensful it would be to install
> Mandriva 2009 on these machines?
>
> I did not install it on any pc but I think that at least on the 500MHz
> box I should rather install Mandrake 10 instead. This is based on the
> assumption that concerning the year of release, Mandriva 2009 has
> similar prerequisits like micro$oft vista?
>
> Any hints which OS makes sense installed on which of these two boxes?
>
Can't say with regard to the Pentium, but I have Mandriva 2009.0
installed on a 800MHz Duron machine with 512 MB of RAM, and it works OK.
A lot depends on what you're trying to do and how much multitasking you
try. I'm using KDE 3.5, if that makes any difference, and I don't
multitask on that machine. There has been a glitch or two from time to
time after it runs for two or three hours, but I think that's a
case-cooling hardware problem. It did the same thing with 2007.1.

TJ

Wes Newell wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:33:19 +0000, Markus R. Keßler wrote:
>
>> Any hints which OS makes sense installed on which of these two boxes?
>>
> If you've got 256M ram or more then any should work. Might try a lighter
> window manager than KDE though.
===========================================
My Ultra ,model A440, laptop with P3-863MHz (vintage 2001) has its max
RAM of 256MB .
After running MDV LE2005 for a few years ,it now happily runs Knoppix
5.1.1 installed on the 20GB HD
Tried Kubuntu 8.10 Live ..............however ,no response , keeps
loading ......not enough RAM !

Frank

PS : If RAM could be expanded I would happily upgrade.

On Friday 12 December 2008 22:57, someone identifying as *Markus R. Keßler*
wrote in /alt.os.linux.mandrake:/

> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:11:46 +0100, Aragorn
> <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Friday 12 December 2008 21:33, someone identifying as *Markus R.
>>Keßler* wrote in /alt.os.linux.mandrake:/
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I just got 2 used intel machines, one P3/500 and one P3/800.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have experience about how sensful it would be to install
>>> Mandriva 2009 on these machines?
>>
>> No experience, but it should work, provided that the machines have enough
>> RAM, as the others have said. 256 MB would be a minimum if you plan on
>> using KDE or Gnome, but I recommend 512 MB.
>
> Even when working with Scribus and some other applications
> simultaneously the total consumption of RAM is rarely higher than
> 220..240MB. In most cases there's even some 50..80MB of RAM cached.

Sure, but the thing is that the speed of your system greatly depends on the
amount of RAM. The more RAM the kernel can access, the more it can use for
caching/buffering, and thus you will get a much faster /feel/ to your
computer.

After all, a computer is only as fast as its slowest component, and that's
still the hard disk. And thus, with lots of RAM, you can cache and buffer
more. ;-)

>>> Any hints which OS makes sense installed on which of these two boxes?
>>
>> GNU/Linux. :p What distribution is a matter of taste. :-)
>
> Hm, well, when I installed Suse 9 I got the impression that this one
> was slower and less agile than Mandrake 10.1
>
> Though I always thought that the version number was meant as a speed
> or "hardware requirement index" ;-) So Mandrake 10 should be slower
> than Suse 9. But this was not the case.

Well, such an analogy would be correct in Micro$oft-speak, but it doesn't
hold in GNU/Linux. Of course, what is certainly true is that the newer
GUIs - e.g. Gnome with Compiz or KDE 4.x, both which make use of hardware
3D acceleration to provide you with all the eyecandy - are heavier on the
resources than KDE 3.x or Gnome with plain old Metacity as the window
manager.

You know, for such old machines, I would rather recommend trying out Gentoo,
or perhaps one of the leaner distros. Still, I recommend using a modern
distro, even if only for the bugfixes and security fixes. If you were to
install Mandrake 9.x or 10.x on it, then there are no longer any updates to
install, and then you're stuck with the software as it came on the CD/DVD
media.

Still, even with Mandriva 2009.0, you /should/ be able to pick another
graphical environment than KDE or Gnome during installation. XFCE has
already been touted as fast, but you can also opt for FluxBox/BlackBox or
whatever its name is these days. It's pretty lean and fast, and visually
far more interesting than - say - /fvwm./ ;-)

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)