linux for old pc

sean536

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
39
Reaction score
2
Credits
45
what version of linux is compatible with a 15 y old laptop? if i take the oldest possible version, would i be able to have the minimum basic functionality? i need web browser with player to be able to watch videos, pdf reader, office, sometimes photoshop, autocad.
 


I had a computer that I got in 2003 and it ran great with Mint 17. However, 17 is now nearing end of life. I don't know if Mint 19.x would run as well. Damn Small Linux is supposed to be designed for older hardware. I've never used it so I can't tell you anything else about it, but I hear it's a good distro. Check it out.
 
G'day @BajaRic and welcome to linux.org :)

You won't likely realise it but what you are doing is referred to as "Hijacking someone else's Thread", it confuses the issues and Helpers.

Start your own Thread (near top right-hand side "Start New Thread", give it a subject title that gives a clue eg "Dell 15z upgraded, what Linux is good?", and put your specs in as you described.

Cheers

Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
BTW - also consider (& this includes you, Sean :)) swinging by

https://www.linux.org/forums/member-introductions.141/

... and telling us a bit of the BajaRic and sean536 stories and get to know a few of the Gang. :D
 
there are various lightweight linux distros.
Alpine, puppylinux, boudhi linux, archbang, crunchbang, lubuntu, few to name.
 
when a linux distribution is ended what does it mean? is it completely unusable like windows 98? or i can take a 2010 version, install current plugins, players, ect and use it today? what is the purpose of constant upgrading of the system? in windows it is because capitalists are constantly renewing and retiring equipment and systems to ensure the movement of money. linux is not commercial, why then there are constant upgrades?
 
when a linux distribution is ended what does it mean?

It no longer receives any support from the originators. Especially, it does not get any security updates.

Yes, it will still "work" but it will become increasingly vulnerable.

Much of updating Linux is about ironing out bugs. Some of it is about getting updated applications. Some of it is about applying security patches...
 
Last edited:
do new versions support old hardware? can software for modern version be installed to an old one? do they still keep software repositories for old versions (for example when i use 2010 ubuntu and install packages from software center, are they new packages and it is accident that they work or they are for that old version?)
 
Lubuntu used to use LXDE. The most recent one used LXQt which is slightly heavier.
 
have you tried xubuntu because that uses xfce and it is very lightweight
 
there are various lightweight linux distros.
Alpine, puppylinux, boudhi linux, archbang, crunchbang, lubuntu, few to name.

I was also interested in the tiny Linux distros, but after reading the complicated installation process I decided against it. I am running Lubuntu 18.04 now and it was child's play to install it. Everything just works out of the box, except the music player, which I replaced with Rhythmbox from the software center.
 
Lubuntu used to use LXDE. The most recent one used LXQt which is slightly heavier.

I have Lubuntu 18.04 and was wondering if I installed the LXQt desktop environment only(Lubuntu-qt-desktop), from Synaptic, will I break things in the system or the whole system itself?
 
have you tried xubuntu because that uses xfce and it is very lightweight

I would really like to see some empirical evidence supporting this assertion.
In my personal experience and from a few blog posts I have read it is not very much 'lighter' than other 'main-stream' DE's
such as Cinnamon.
I'm not doubting the statement as fact - just wanting to know from a 'scientific' standpoint.
Is it 'truly' 'lighter'?
 
I would really like to see some empirical evidence supporting this assertion.
In my personal experience and from a few blog posts I have read it is not very much 'lighter' than other 'main-stream' DE's
such as Cinnamon.
I'm not doubting the statement as fact - just wanting to know from a 'scientific' standpoint.
Is it 'truly' 'lighter'?

I guess that if one goes about it scientifically, you would have to download and install all the desktop environment or install various desktop environment on the same distribution.

I just have experience with Gnome, KDE and LXDE. The Gnome one was the heaviest on my system, KDE was lighter and LXDE is definitely the lightest.

I downloaded Lubuntu with LXDE because it was smaller with less programs I would not need anyway. I have a tricky 3G internet that work fast sometimes and is very slow other times.

I personally have found that a well compiled Linux distribution saves me a lot of time and trouble, as opposed to installing some base and then trying out, which programs work well with it for two weeks.

I tried a minimal install of Q40S based on Debian 9 and had a lot of trouble choosing the right music player and other programs to work without hick ups.

I have also read that XFCE and LXDE have less bugs than the prettier DE, like KDE. I have only one PC so I haven't tried out them all. Budgie looks like a good comprise between performance and good looks.

Personally I am sticking with Lubuntu because it works so reliably, other people might get bad flashbacks of Windows XP and find it too bland for their taste.
 

Members online


Latest posts

Top