Ubuntu Hoary Hardware Requirements?

Sean C Estes sce.eits at gmail.com
Mon Jun 6 15:48:24 BST 2005


My 2.cents...

My friend and I are currently running a web-server and database-server
on Pentium II 200mhz and 333mhz systems with only 1.5 and 2.6 gigabyte
harddrives and generic ethernet cards.
Installation was slow as a snail, but once it is on, it runs
suprisingly quick for such 'legacy' systems.  Mind you.....this is
command line interface only. If we were to put a desktop on top of
this, we would us Xfce because of its speed and small footprint.
Total size for these systems are about 310meg each.  Our next project
is to create a Thin-client server based on the same systems (we have 4
more computers to play with).
Ubuntu can, IMHO, run on 99% of anything out there WITHOUT fuss.

So, enjoy!

Sean E.

On 6/6/05, Stephen R Laniel <steve at laniels.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:15:09PM +0200, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
> > Would Hoary run adequately on an Intel Celeron clocked at about 700 MHz,
> > equipped with 128 MB of RAM and using the i810 chipset?
> 
> Depends on what you run on it. I mean, I've run Debian
> servers on much crappier hardware than that -- quite busy
> websites running Apache. For years I ran GNOME on a 400-MHz
> Pentium 3. It worked fine.
> 
> One of the big virtues of Linux is its ability to run on old
> hardware [1]. If you run a totally stripped-down server
> machine -- no desktop apps at all -- you'll get something
> very speedy. Your machine might labor a bit with GNOME, but
> it'll still be passable. It'll be no slower than Windows
> 2000, though it might be slower than NT 4 or Win95/98. But
> then you're getting a lot more than you would get from old
> Windows. What's the alternative to running Linux on that old
> machine? Running no OS at all? Or running Windows?
> 
> [1] - See Clay Shirky,
> <http://shirky.com/writings/short_takes.html>:
> 
> "Free Software Creates New Value
> Thinking about the recent conversations about Linux 'market
> share', it occurred to me that some of us may be making the
> same mistake (self included) that Thomas Watson made when he
> predicted a worldwide market for 5 computers, or when Ken
> Olsen said there would be no market for computers in the
> home, i.e. assuming that the future will be much like the
> present.
> 
> Looking at Linux vs. NT in terms of present market share
> hides that group of people for whom the choice is not Linux
> vs. NT but Linux vs. nothing. Linux users don't just come
> from the ranks of people who would otherswise use NT or
> Win9[58] -- for people who only have access to 386 or 486
> computers, and can't afford anything new, Linux offers them
> the only possibility for running a modern OS, both because
> it runs well on minimal hardware and because it is free.
> 
> Watching large corporations dance around the idea of running
> Linux is interesting, but to switch to Linux from NT always
> involves some short term cost that raises the barrier to
> such a move. The real change in computing ecology could come
> from another quarter altogether - that group of people who
> either haven't owned computers in the past, or who have had
> computers which have not been able to run web servers et al.
> Linux's biggest growth in market share may come from places
> inaccessible to for-profit companies at all."
> 
> --
> Stephen R. Laniel
> steve at laniels.org
> +(617) 308-5571
> http://laniels.org/
> PGP key: http://laniels.org/slaniel.key
> 
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>




More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list