Richard said:Another question, if I may. If I boot from the Ubuntu Live DVD and the
system functions ok, can I assume (bad word again) that an install would
be the same on that hardware? I have only installed in virtual machines.
dennis@home said:You pop the CD in and boot.
However the standard install doesn't work with 256M RAM so how old is
the machine?
Richard said:Well, that kills that idea. It is Win95 class computer that I had
sitting around. I may just put Win95 back on it for the gent.
Richard said:Another question, if I may. If I boot from the Ubuntu Live DVD and the
system functions ok, can I assume (bad word again) that an install would
be the same on that hardware? I have only installed in virtual machines.
caver1 said:It depends on the machine. I just tried it on an older machine that I
have;
AbitK7 amd 550 with 256 ram. loads just fine.
Mike said:Hello?
I didn't write the words you quoted me on, and neither did I mention GFX
cards. It is an ATI 32mb card and I knew that it wouldn't run
Compiz-Fusion before I started the installation. I trashed the Win 2000
installation deliberately, btw, not that 7.10 gave much option to do
anything else.
Please ensure when quoting others that you at least accredit the quotes
to the person making them. Thanks for the insults too.
(snip)
Try putting your pants on over-your-head, instead of normally. The opportunity IS at your disposal.
It's not the opportunity "to try new stuff" itself - that Mike Hall is talking about. After all, he took the time and tried Ubuntu. Sheesh.
The end result of trying new & mind-broadening opportunities can produce futility.
I appreciate Mike Hall's balanced, polite and clearly thought-out posts.
{ netlink }
dennis@home said:Have you tried to run the installer?
My vaio is a celery 600 with 256M and it hangs just after saying
starting partitioner.
caver1 said:Yes I just did .Took about 35mins.
I had the same problem as you with my newer machine
Abit board can't remember which one right now
amd K4 1600
256 ram.
The only thing I did was upgrade ram to 512 and it worked fine.
I just tried it on the other one to see what would happen.
dennis@home said:More RAM isn't an option for me as one of the DIMM slots is broken and I
can't fit more RAM even though I have it.
I will just have to leave XP on it as it isn't as bloated.
caver1 said:Why it would work on one system with 256 and the other not I have no idea.
Another question, if I may. If I boot from the Ubuntu Live DVD and the
system functions ok, can I assume (bad word again) that an install would
be the same on that hardware? I have only installed in virtual machines.
Yes but my guess is it will crash in the first 2 minutes.
I also spotted another issues (I think).
The presence of a second drive seems to confuse the "From Live"
installer, this makes sense of the CD that got Microwaved if the machine
had more than one drive... I think I found a bug as it doesn't happen
with the older versions. (64 and 32 both have it)
Charlie,
On a serious note - where do you find hardware compatibility information
for Ubuntu? I have not been able to come by it. Do they have "any" sort
of program you can run to give a rough idea where one stands?
I'm asking because I have to set up an OLD computer for a handicapped
individual. It will just be used for web surfing and email.
caver1 said:Why it would work on one system with 256 and the other not I have no idea.
Probably because I only have 248M left after the video has eaten 8M.
Have you tried to run the installer?
My vaio is a celery 600 with 256M and it hangs just after saying
starting partitioner.
Why it would work on one system with 256 and the other not I have no
idea.
Download the alternative install CD and try with that. The text mode
installer isn't any more difficult to use (think win9x installer), just
doesn't look as pretty.
Stephan said:Ummm Charlie, want to translate this into some language I can understand?
English? German? Japanese? Take your pick...
Stephan said:Can depend on the video card. I've seen Ubuntu boot fine on a 256 meg
system and not on the other.
Difference? One really had 256 megs, the other had 256 megs shared with
the on-board video card reducing the effective amount of available memory.
Also, I suppose the hardware drivers that need to be loaded can make a
difference too. Different drivers may have different memory requirements.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.