Really slow response from Ubuntu LiveCD

andy at andy at
Tue Aug 19 14:50:11 UTC 2008

Remember that the old PCs has very slow CD drives.
So after installing on the PC it will be faster then the CD


Quoting Daniel Robitaille <robitaille at>:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Bob Jonkman wrote:
>> Hi all:  Yesterday I was trying to fix someone's really old PC by
>> removing Windows98 and installing Ubuntu (7.10).  The PC dates from
>> 1999, and holds a maximum of 128 MiBytes RAM. I tried installing more
>> RAM, but the  motherboard configuration switches max out at 128 MiBytes
>> and additional RAM just isn't recognized.
>> With Win98 still on the computer I tried to run the Live CDs Ubuntu
>> 7.10 and Kubuntu 7.10 so that I could rescue all his documents by
>> copying them to a thumb drive (Win98 doesn't support thumb drives
>> without additional drivers).
>> Unfortunately, both Ubuntu and Kubuntu were abysmally slow.  It took at
>> least 30 minutes to get through the booting and get to a file browser
>> so that I could copy the files (which took less than a minute).
>> Dragging a window couldn't be done in real time - it took over a minute
>> for the window to appear at the new location, and in the meantime the
>> mouse cursor was completely unresponsive.
>> I also tried Knoppix 4.10 (a CD from 2005), and in comparison it was
>> wonderfully snappy and responsive.
>> I left Win98 on the computer, since I didn't want to risk such poor
>> response with Ubuntu installed.
>> Is it possible that Ubuntu would work much better once installed on the
>> hard drive?  If so, what might be causing the poor performance on the
>> Live CD?  Are Live CDs known to be much MUCH slower than installed?
>> How come Knoppix was so much better?
>> I'm sure everything would work better with more memory, but this PC
>> hardware isn't capable of more than 128 MiBytes.
> my personal experience with my laptop with 256mb of ram is that the
> Ubuntu live CD was not usable after Dapper (6.06) with the same
> experience than ours (i.e, very slow).
> But I was able to install Ubuntu relatively easily using the curse-based
> installer (look for the "alternate CD").  So you don't get the live CD, and
> fancy graphical install, but it will install.  But that's with 256mb.
> But I have no idea about the performance of running Ubuntu using only
> 128mb of ram.  Last time I had this type of configuration, I was using
> Fedora Core 1, so it has been quite a few years, and many versions ago
> the of the various components of a Linux distro.
> --
> Daniel Robitaille
> --
> ubuntu-ca mailing list
> ubuntu-ca at

More information about the ubuntu-ca mailing list