Which OS to just to run WEB Browser

Any one suggest which OS or Linux? I have a unused old laptop - i386
which i want to use for browsing and email...something i can leave on
in the kitchen so the kids can use for email access or internet.

thanks in advance

malcolm.dhuga-at-talk21.com wrote:

>Any one suggest which OS or Linux? I have a unused old laptop - i386
>which i want to use for browsing and email...something i can leave on
>in the kitchen so the kids can use for email access or internet.

Look here:
http://www.volny.cz/basiclinux/oldpc/

Guy Macon

On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:50:20 -0700, malcolm.dhuga wrote:

> Any one suggest which OS or Linux? I have a unused old laptop - i386
> which i want to use for browsing and email...something i can leave on in
> the kitchen so the kids can use for email access or internet.
>
> thanks in advance

You might be able to get Puppy or Damn Small Linux to work depending on
how much memory you have. The performance is going to suck. DSL claims it
can run in 16M, I can't imagine it will be able to do anything more then
run CLI with no X with that amount of memory.

On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:50:20 -0700, malcolm.dhuga wrote:

> Any one suggest which OS or Linux? I have a unused old laptop - i386

Linux.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dan C wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:50:20 -0700, malcolm.dhuga wrote:
>
>> Any one suggest which OS or Linux? I have a unused old laptop - i386
>
> Linux.
>
I think Dan means most Linux distros, if not all, will work..

Issue will likely be with speed and graphics..some older machines may
not run X-windows that fast.

everything else you want to do won;t strain an 8088 let alone a 386...;-)

On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:50:20 -0700, malcolm.dhuga wrote:

> Any one suggest which OS or Linux? I have a unused old laptop - i386
> which i want to use for browsing and email...something i can leave on in
> the kitchen so the kids can use for email access or internet.

Is it a 386 or 486 or other notebook? If the first, you'll be mostly out
of luck with contemporary versions of Linux: They need at a minimum a
486 CPU, but most, if not all, will only run in terminal mode with that
CPU. Plus, how much RAM does it have? Even if it uses a 486 processor,
you'll need to have at least 32 MB of RAM to run X (the graphics server)
effectively with an old distro from the same era as the notebook.

My best advice, if a 386 or 486, is to install DOS and Windows 3.11, if
you want a GUI. I have a very old -- about 10+ years -- Packard Bell
Diplomat notebook with a 25MHz 486 and 4 MB of RAM, and I've been
unsuccessful in finding any version of Linux old or new with a GUI that
will run on it. So, it runs DOS and Windows. (I use it mainly as a
glorified typewriter. Not much good for anything else.) Plus, the old
versions of Linux from that era are just too hard for the neophyte Linux
user to administer and configure.

FYI: Contemporary Linux distros run best on systems with at least a 500
MHz (1 Gig is better) Pentium/Athlon CPU and 256MB RAM. I have Debian
3.1 Sarge with GNOME running on an IBM Thinkpad 240X (500MHz PIII and 192
MB RAM). The screen updates are slow, but it works well enough for my
purposes -- in the field writing, email, web, business stuff. (I could
improve the graphic response by going to a lightweight, less resource
demanding window manager. I just haven't bothered.) Also, I'm running
PCLinuxOS 2007 with KDE on a Dell Inspiron 5000e (500MHz PIII and 256MB)
and it runs much better than the Thinkpad because of more RAM.

Stef

On May 31, 1:17 am, Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:50:20 -0700, malcolm.dhuga wrote:
> > Any one suggest which OS or Linux? I have a unused old laptop - i386
> > which i want to use for browsing and email...something i can leave on in
> > the kitchen so the kids can use for email access or internet.

You may get acceptable performance using it as an X terminal.
Even then, performance will be very sluggish. I use a 120mhz
Pentium with 48megs of RAM as an X terminal, and it's
definitely laggy. In contrast, my 300mhz PII with 192megs of
RAM is almost as responsive as running my main workstation
locally. Both of these computers run Debian 4.0 and are
connected to my LAN via 100mbit fast ethernet. I could
improve performance by getting rid of anti-aliased fonts, but
I really like the pleasant appearance of anti-aliased fonts.

The 120mhz Pentium runs at 1024x768 resolution; the 300mhz
PII runs at 2048x1536 resolution. I also login locally on the
300mhz machine occasionally. It's somewhat sluggish, but
definitely usable. The large amount of RAM (192megs) really
helps, although really 64megs is sufficient.

But an old 386 laptop? It probably only has 1 or 2 gigs of
RAM. Running any sort of Linux is an exercise in futility
on that. Your best bet may be a floppy based rdesktop or
vnc client. The responsiveness will be very laggy, but at least
it will be usable.

> My best advice, if a 386 or 486, is to install DOS and Windows 3.11, if
> you want a GUI. I have a very old -- about 10+ years -- Packard Bell
> Diplomat notebook with a 25MHz 486 and 4 MB of RAM, and I've been
> unsuccessful in finding any version of Linux old or new with a GUI that
> will run on it. So, it runs DOS and Windows. (I use it mainly as a
> glorified typewriter. Not much good for anything else.) Plus, the old
> versions of Linux from that era are just too hard for the neophyte Linux
> user to administer and configure.

With only 4megs of RAM, it's pretty hopeless. With 16megs
of RAM, that laptop would be a decent candidate for Deli
Linux, a modern distribution.

> FYI: Contemporary Linux distros run best on systems with at least a 500
> MHz (1 Gig is better) Pentium/Athlon CPU and 256MB RAM. I have Debian
> 3.1 Sarge with GNOME running on an IBM Thinkpad 240X (500MHz PIII and 192
> MB RAM). The screen updates are slow, but it works well enough for my
> purposes -- in the field writing, email, web, business stuff. (I could
> improve the graphic response by going to a lightweight, less resource
> demanding window manager. I just haven't bothered.) Also, I'm running
> PCLinuxOS 2007 with KDE on a Dell Inspiron 5000e (500MHz PIII and 256MB)
> and it runs much better than the Thinkpad because of more RAM.

With Debian Sarge, I found GNOME seemed sluggish compared to KDE.
With KDE, I found Debian Sarge to run perfectly fine on 128megs of
RAM.
Since you're already used to KDE on your PCLinuxOS machine, you could
try out KDE on your Debian machine also. While you're at it, you
could
try out Debian 4.0 (Etch) instead. Sarge's old KDE setup lacks some
of
what I would consider "the basics". For example, if you plug in a USB
thumbdrive, Sarge's KDE will do...nothing. You have to manually mount
the drive in some fashion (maybe typing some commands, maybe having
a USB drive icon on the desktop to right click on). In contrast,
Etch's
more recent KDE handles removeable drives and media with a friendly
pop-up window.

I use KDE on some of my Debian 4.0 machines. One of them only has
128megs of RAM. It works fine, despite the lack of swap (like most of
my workstations, it's diskless). KDE has a bad reputation for being
bloated, but I somehow get the feeling that recent versions of KDE are
actually less bloated than recent versions of GNOME.

Isaac Kuo

On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:37:56 -0700, IsaacKuo wrote:

> On May 31, 1:17 am, Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:50:20 -0700, malcolm.dhuga wrote:
>> > Any one suggest which OS or Linux? I have a unused old laptop - i386
>> > which i want to use for browsing and email...something i can leave on
>> > in the kitchen so the kids can use for email access or internet.
>
> [snip]
>
>> My best advice, if a 386 or 486, is to install DOS and Windows 3.11, if
>> you want a GUI. I have a very old -- about 10+ years -- Packard Bell
>> Diplomat notebook with a 25MHz 486 and 4 MB of RAM, and I've been
>> unsuccessful in finding any version of Linux old or new with a GUI that
>> will run on it. So, it runs DOS and Windows. (I use it mainly as a
>> glorified typewriter. Not much good for anything else.) Plus, the old
>> versions of Linux from that era are just too hard for the neophyte
>> Linux user to administer and configure.
>
> With only 4megs of RAM, it's pretty hopeless. With 16megs of RAM, that
> laptop would be a decent candidate for Deli Linux, a modern
> distribution.

4 megs is fine for a terminal interface. The problem was finding a small
enough X server. There was Tiny X, IIRC, which was designed for 4 MB or
more machines, but it didn't pan out. I even considered Linux From
Scratch, but after about a year of off and on researching, I gave up, and
reinstalled DOS 6.something and Windows 3.11.


Yes! If only I could have added RAM, I could have run Slackware on it.
It is expandable to 20 MB, through a single proprietary expansion module
in 4 or 8 or 16 MB sizes, but I could never find one. The notebook was 5
years old when I bought it used, and was no longer supported by Packard
Bell. Now, it just sits on the shelf in my closet. The 240X Thinkpad is
its replacement.

>> FYI: Contemporary Linux distros run best on systems with at least a
>> 500 MHz (1 Gig is better) Pentium/Athlon CPU and 256MB RAM. I have
>> Debian 3.1 Sarge with GNOME running on an IBM Thinkpad 240X (500MHz
>> PIII and 192 MB RAM). The screen updates are slow, but it works well
>> enough for my purposes -- in the field writing, email, web, business
>> stuff. (I could improve the graphic response by going to a
>> lightweight, less resource demanding window manager. I just haven't
>> bothered.) Also, I'm running PCLinuxOS 2007 with KDE on a Dell
>> Inspiron 5000e (500MHz PIII and 256MB) and it runs much better than the
>> Thinkpad because of more RAM.
>
> With Debian Sarge, I found GNOME seemed sluggish compared to KDE. With
> KDE, I found Debian Sarge to run perfectly fine on 128megs of RAM.

I should have said that it's some apps that are slow updating. The
desktop and all the menus and utilities runs fine. The one that is the
slowest is Firefox. Usually takes 2 or 3 seconds to write the window
contents. However, Abiword is positively zippy. OpenOffice 1.1, too,
but a little less so.

> Since you're already used to KDE on your PCLinuxOS machine, you could
> try out KDE on your Debian machine also. While you're at it, you could
> try out Debian 4.0 (Etch) instead. Sarge's old KDE setup lacks some of
> what I would consider "the basics". For example, if you plug in a USB
> thumbdrive, Sarge's KDE will do...nothing. You have to manually mount
> the drive in some fashion (maybe typing some commands, maybe having a
> USB drive icon on the desktop to right click on). In contrast, Etch's
> more recent KDE handles removeable drives and media with a friendly
> pop-up window.

Tried installing Etch, but it failed. The 240X can't boot directly off
its external USB CD-ROM. It can only boot from the internal hard drive or
external floppy. You need to use floppies and load drivers. Debian Sarge
already had floppy image files on the CD, so I didn't have to create my
own. And that's how (and why) Debian ended up on the notebook. Etch had
them, too, but the boot sequence failed when it should have transferred
the boot over to the install CD. My guess is it didn't have the proper
driver for the 7 year old IBM CD drive. I could do a network install,
but the minimum system requirements for Etch are well beyond the specs of
my little 240X. Just too much OS.

> I use KDE on some of my Debian 4.0 machines. One of them only has
> 128megs of RAM. It works fine, despite the lack of swap (like most of
> my workstations, it's diskless). KDE has a bad reputation for being
> bloated, but I somehow get the feeling that recent versions of KDE are
> actually less bloated than recent versions of GNOME.

I used KDE for several years with several distros, but as it evolved I
began to dislike more and more the way things had been changed and
implemented on it. When I switched to Fedora Core 3 from Slackware on my
primary desktop machine, GNOME was the default. So, I just took it for a
test drive, and generally preferred it over KDE.

Stef

On May 31, 10:45 pm, Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:37:56 -0700, IsaacKuo wrote:
> > On May 31, 1:17 am, Stefan Patric wrote:

> > With Debian Sarge, I found GNOME seemed sluggish compared to KDE. With
> > KDE, I found Debian Sarge to run perfectly fine on 128megs of RAM.

> I should have said that it's some apps that are slow updating. The
> desktop and all the menus and utilities runs fine. The one that is the
> slowest is Firefox. Usually takes 2 or 3 seconds to write the window
> contents. However, Abiword is positively zippy. OpenOffice 1.1, too,
> but a little less so.

That sounds about right. Firefox is pretty heavy on RAM usage,
so it's one of the first offenders for sluggishness when your DE
is using too much RAM to begin with. I used Firefox as my
main web browser, and with KDE it wasn't so sluggish (on a
550mhz Pentium III desktop with 128megs of RAM).

> Tried installing Etch, but it failed. The 240X can't boot directly off
> its external USB CD-ROM. It can only boot from the internal hard drive or
> external floppy. You need to use floppies and load drivers. Debian Sarge
> already had floppy image files on the CD, so I didn't have to create my
> own. And that's how (and why) Debian ended up on the notebook. Etch had
> them, too, but the boot sequence failed when it should have transferred
> the boot over to the install CD. My guess is it didn't have the proper
> driver for the 7 year old IBM CD drive. I could do a network install,
> but the minimum system requirements for Etch are well beyond the specs of
> my little 240X. Just too much OS.

Where are these minimum system requirements published?
On Debian's web site? Regardless, I can assure you that the
actual minimum system requirements for Etch are well below
what you've got.

I have set up network install, and it's really nice once it's set up.
I have lots of computers and not enough reliable optical drives
to go around. Some of my computers don't even boot properly
from optical drives. It's nice to be able to just insert a PXE
boot floppy or set the BIOS to PXE boot (in the case of more
modern motherboards with PXE), and get the Debian installer!

I used network install for the majority of my Debian 4.0 installs.
This includes the Pentium 120 with 48megs of RAM.

> > I use KDE on some of my Debian 4.0 machines. One of them only has
> > 128megs of RAM. It works fine, despite the lack of swap (like most of
> > my workstations, it's diskless). KDE has a bad reputation for being
> > bloated, but I somehow get the feeling that recent versions of KDE are
> > actually less bloated than recent versions of GNOME.

> I used KDE for several years with several distros, but as it evolved I
> began to dislike more and more the way things had been changed and
> implemented on it. When I switched to Fedora Core 3 from Slackware on my
> primary desktop machine, GNOME was the default. So, I just took it for a
> test drive, and generally preferred it over KDE.

Have you tried out XFCE? It's sort of a lightweight version of GNOME.
It's pretty GNOME-like.

Isaac Kuo

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 05:45:24 -0700, IsaacKuo wrote:

> On May 31, 10:45 pm, Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:37:56 -0700, IsaacKuo wrote:
>> > On May 31, 1:17 am, Stefan Patric wrote:
>
>> > With Debian Sarge, I found GNOME seemed sluggish compared to KDE.
>> > With KDE, I found Debian Sarge to run perfectly fine on 128megs of
>> > RAM.
>
>> I should have said that it's some apps that are slow updating. The
>> desktop and all the menus and utilities runs fine. The one that is the
>> slowest is Firefox. Usually takes 2 or 3 seconds to write the window
>> contents. However, Abiword is positively zippy. OpenOffice 1.1, too,
>> but a little less so.
>
> That sounds about right. Firefox is pretty heavy on RAM usage, so it's
> one of the first offenders for sluggishness when your DE is using too
> much RAM to begin with. I used Firefox as my main web browser, and with
> KDE it wasn't so sluggish (on a 550mhz Pentium III desktop with 128megs
> of RAM).
>
>> Tried installing Etch, but it failed. The 240X can't boot directly off
>> its external USB CD-ROM. It can only boot from the internal hard drive
>> or external floppy. You need to use floppies and load drivers. Debian
>> Sarge already had floppy image files on the CD, so I didn't have to
>> create my own. And that's how (and why) Debian ended up on the
>> notebook. Etch had them, too, but the boot sequence failed when it
>> should have transferred the boot over to the install CD. My guess is
>> it didn't have the proper driver for the 7 year old IBM CD drive. I
>> could do a network install, but the minimum system requirements for
>> Etch are well beyond the specs of my little 240X. Just too much OS.
>
> Where are these minimum system requirements published? On Debian's web
> site? Regardless, I can assure you that the actual minimum system
> requirements for Etch are well below what you've got.

Not according to Debian:

http://www.debian.org/releases/stabl...h03s04.html.en

Recommends 1 GHz CPU and 512 MB RAM for Etch with a desktop. For Sarge,
"Recommends" are a lot less. Just about what the 240X has. Although,
I'm not opposed to installing Etch just to see how it runs. Probably the
two first things I'd do to improve performance is compile as lean a
kernel as I can, and use a lightweight GUI.

>
>> > I use KDE on some of my Debian 4.0 machines. One of them only has
>> > 128megs of RAM. It works fine, despite the lack of swap (like most
>> > of my workstations, it's diskless). KDE has a bad reputation for
>> > being bloated, but I somehow get the feeling that recent versions of
>> > KDE are actually less bloated than recent versions of GNOME.

Well, I know people who swear by KDE; and others who swear at it. Of
course, the new KDE is supposed to more improved and faster than the one
designed for the 2.4 kernel, which I use on Sarge. I went with the older
kernel for some specific hardware compatibility problems I had with the
2.6 kernel. Problems that have since been rectified.

>> I used KDE for several years with several distros, but as it evolved I
>> began to dislike more and more the way things had been changed and
>> implemented on it. When I switched to Fedora Core 3 from Slackware on
>> my primary desktop machine, GNOME was the default. So, I just took it
>> for a test drive, and generally preferred it over KDE.
>
> Have you tried out XFCE? It's sort of a lightweight version of GNOME.
> It's pretty GNOME-like.

XFCE4 is on the short list. I just haven't gotten around to installing
it to try out. Also, looking at iceWM, which I'm familiar with from
running Vector Linux on an old 166 MHz, 64MB system years ago. However,
it is very basic and might not be suitable, unless it's been improved
over the past few years.

Stef