My experence with Ubuntu 7.10

[Charlie Tame]

I am not referring to any system in particular. I have half a dozen
older computers on the shelf and I wanted to see if they are compatible.
Something like the Vista Compatibility Checker (even though it is not
100% accurate) would be appreciated. If there is no chance at all that
7.10 will not install, I don't want to waste the time.

Well I think it unlikely with Ubuntu on <256 MB and if it does it will
be no quicker than XP, however Debian might work but by default aims
lower in the graphics department. Ubuntu does have another CD that
installs a more minimal system and has more choice, but even so I think
you will be hard pressed to come up with something that by default will
give you the resolution XP will.

I would not like to comment on others I've "Looked at" but never really
used.

 

[Charlie Tame]

okay I thought that but the one it would boot on was onboard shared video.
The other has a 64 meg Nvidia card. Both with 256. ?
I know its hardware but its not worth it to me to find out what.
caver1

Well I reckon Debian would be alright, the RAM on the card seems to
matter less than RAM in the system. It's not quite as user friendly as
Ubuntu but solid enough. Of course you may be able to improve video
after install

 

[Guest]

That Message Was Posted With Ubuntu 7.10, Any Post That Contains The Mozilla
Thunder Bird 2.0.0.6 X11 Identifier, Was Posted With Open Source Linux
Ubuntu 7.10, Just FYI. I Have Since Temporarily Returned To Windows Server
2008 Release Candidate 0, In Order To Run Some Diagnostic Tests On The
Memory (I Recently Added 2 Gigabytes Of Ram To One Of My Two Computer's),
And To Run Diagnostic Tests On The Hard Disks On The Two Computer's As Well.

P.S. I Will Return To Open Source Linux Ubuntu 7.10 Just As Soon As The Free
Disks I Requested From http://www.ubuntu.com/ Arrive At My Home, Since I
Have Found Some Bugs With The Upgrade Process From 7.04 To 7.10, Just FYI.

 

[Guest]

P.S. If You Were A Real Open Source Follower, You Would Have Known About
That X11 Identifier, Just FYI.

 

[MICHAEL]

Why aren't you using Thunderbird,
Mr. Real Open Source Follower?

It does work in Windows, Just FYI.


-Michael

* (e-mail address removed):

 

[Stephan Rose]

I have but I haven't had time to try it yet. There can't be much demand
as I don't appear to have any trouble downloading Ubuntu 7.10 isos at
high speeds. ;-)

Neither did I, on release day. It's just a matter of picking a good
mirror. =)

The main server though seriously, it was beyond hammered. I couldn't even
get a byte from it.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Stephan Rose]

Yes, I think this is what happens.

I have a machine with one IDE and 2 SATA.

If you try to install from the live CD onto SATA with either 32 or 64
bit it seems fine until you restart when it comes back with a cannot
find file. Remove the IDE (which was not the target drive) and the
installer works perfectly.

Does not appear to write anything on the IDE drive, just seems like it's
presence causes a problem

Hmm that's interesting. I don't think I've ever tried that particular
configuration. IDE drives are so 90's! =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Stephan Rose]

Well I think it unlikely with Ubuntu on <256 MB and if it does it will
be no quicker than XP, however Debian might work but by default aims
lower in the graphics department. Ubuntu does have another CD that
installs a more minimal system and has more choice, but even so I think
you will be hard pressed to come up with something that by default will
give you the resolution XP will.

You mean video resolution? The latest version should give the appropriate
resolution without a problem. I've honestly yet to see it not do that.

Ubuntu under 256mb is going to be though, that's why I suggest Xubuntu.

Essentially it isn't Ubuntu eating the memory, it's the desktop manager
that eats most of the memory.



--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Stephan Rose]

I am not referring to any system in particular. I have half a dozen
older computers on the shelf and I wanted to see if they are compatible.
Something like the Vista Compatibility Checker (even though it is not
100% accurate) would be appreciated. If there is no chance at all that
7.10 will not install, I don't want to waste the time.

Ahh gotcha. Well the compatibility checker is basically the LiveCD.
LiveCD boots and you're normally good to go. If you are having trouble
Ubuntu LiveCD due to low memory, like I said, try Xubuntu.

Xubuntu can run with as little as 64mb of RAM in the system, though the
live CD will still want 192 megs of RAM as the file system and everything
else has to go somewhere and memory is the only place it can go.

http://www.xubuntu.com/get#gutsy

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Richard Urban]

Gee, I remember 5-6 years ago the word was to reclaim those old PC that were
not up to snuff for the new Windows O/S by running Linux on them - because
they used so little resources.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

 

[Stephan Rose]

Gee, I remember 5-6 years ago the word was to reclaim those old PC that
were not up to snuff for the new Windows O/S by running Linux on them -
because they used so little resources.

Sure but on the other hand people also want all the conveniences of
modern day operating systems. They want a user interface, pretty icons,
and so on. Automated wizards, etc. None of this is free and all of it
consumes memory.

The Linux kernel itself wants little to none of it. It's all consumed by
the conveniences above.

And quite honestly, that statement you mention still holds true today.

You can reclaim those old PCs that are not up to snuff for the new
Windows OS by Linux on them. You just need to stay with the appropriate
distribution.

Ubuntu 7.10 would like 320 megs of RAM but will run with 256 or better.
Xubuntu would like 192 megs of RAM but will run with 64 or better.
Vista would like 1024 megs of RAM but will run with 512 or better.

So the statement is perfectly true. If you have PCs that are not suitable
for Vista they are more than likely going to be suitable for Ubuntu.

Now if the hardware is so old that not even Xubuntu will properly run on
it, well then you'll likely need to use a distribution specialized to run
on such hardware. Most modern day distributions are designed to compete
with Vista and modern day XP. Not with Win95 or Win98.

But regardless of that, there are distributions specialized to run on
older hardware such as Damn Small Linux which will run on a 486DX with 16
megs of RAM if it needs to.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Guest]

Because I Like To Show People That I Am Boycotting Windows Vista RTM (Which
Already Has At Least 35 Security Related Updates Available Equaling At Least
100 Mega Bytes, For An Operating System Which Is Being Advertised As The
Most Security Tight Operating System Ever, And Is Labeled As Perfect For
Developers, IT Pro's, And SMB's), And That I Am Using The Windows Server
2008 Release Candidate 0 Public Beta Instead (Which Is Where The WOW Really
Went) Just FYI.

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Because I Like To Show People That I Am Boycotting Windows Vista RTM
(Which Already Has At Least 35 Security Related Updates Available
Equaling At Least 100 Mega Bytes, For An Operating System Which Is Being
Advertised As The Most Security Tight Operating System Ever, And Is
Labeled As Perfect For Developers, IT Pro's, And SMB's), And That I Am
Using The Windows Server 2008 Release Candidate 0 Public Beta Instead
(Which Is Where The WOW Really Went) Just FYI.

Oh yes, the 'security of vista'! I found out today that if you have a
vista business machine not joined to a domain, and your login does not
have a password set, that when you lock the screen, all you need to do
is click on your picture in order to get back to the desktop. Locked my
arse!


--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Vista User]

"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"

Oh yes, the 'security of vista'! I found out today that if you have a
vista business machine not joined to a domain, and your login does not
have a password set, that when you lock the screen, all you need to do is
click on your picture in order to get back to the desktop. Locked my
arse!

So Vista should just pick a password and make you guess what it is?

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"


So Vista should just pick a password and make you guess what it is?

Well, a few things could happen here to improve the current state:

- They could call it something besides 'locked' because it obviously is
NOT locked.

- Vista could pretend there is a password as did older versions of
windows (ie prompt for a password, even though there isn't one) because
that at least gives the impression that there is some kind of password.

- Strongly encourage, nag, recommend, whatever you want to call it that
user(s) of the computer create a password for security purposes.

That's just a few ideas which would improve it.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett