smkururu at rocketmail.com
Tue Apr 14 05:51:39 UTC 2009
Roy Smith wrote:
> Amedee Van Gasse (ubuntu) wrote:
>> Steve Reilly schreef:
>>> Amedee Van Gasse (ubuntu) wrote:
>>>> But still I don't know any good reason why someone would install a 4
>>>> year old version of Ubuntu on a 10 year old desktop pc, if a current
>>>> version of Ubuntu is just as good.
>>> agreed, i cant say for 9.04 but 8.04 runs fine on several "ex" win 98
>>> computers ive given away over the last several months. had to upgrade
>>> the ram from 128 to 256, mind you they arent smokin fast, but fine for
>>> web surfing, open office, etc. one of them i threw a 128mb nvidia card
>>> in, and runs any linux 3d game you can throw at it. havent had 1 call
>>> from anyone about i cant run this, or i cant open that. in fact theyre
>>> all pretty impressed that they were immune from the lastest windows
>>> nonsense viruses and worms about lately.
>> Agreed, memory is the only issue for 10 year old computers. If a memory
>> upgrade isn't possible, use Puppy Linux: it is optimized for a small
>> Sure it's not Ubuntu, but it's Linux. I bet that given enough time, say
>> a couple of weeks, I could create an Ubuntu-based Linux that also has an
>> extremely low memory footprint, if I wanted to. And so could anyone else
>> who follows this mailing list. I'm sure that the documentation already
>> exists in the wiki, it's just a simple matter of piecing everything
> If memory is a problem, wouldn't Xubuntu be a good solution for those
> instances? Sure it may not have all the bells and whistles of a Gnome
> of KDE desktop, but it should be compact enough for a pc with less than
> 128 MB, right?
I agree, you should use Xubuntu. By the way, next time, try to use a
more descriptive Subject instead of "help" or "urgent".That way we'll
able to help you better.
More information about the ubuntu-users