Lubuntu is faster than Xubuntu. I've installed it on an 7 yr old Compaq desktop with 480 RAM and 1.4 ghz cpu and it's very responsive. http://lubuntu.net/blog/lubuntu-1004-now-available-download it's a 521MB live Cd.
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Mike Connors <mconno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > While I am not personally interested, at the Clinic we quite often are > > faced with a newbie wanting to install Linux on a computer with limited > > resources, e.g., < 256 MB RAM, hard disk with only 4 GB, and so on. > > When faced with such a scenario we usually whip out a live CD for > > Xubuntu, although occasionally Puppy and DSL have their day. If Lubuntu > > is a viable alternative, I'd like to know. > > > > You could also check out Fluxbuntu for older, limited resource machines > as > it can run on a system with only a 300 MHz CPU and 64 MB of RAM. > > It uses truly lower resource intensive apps such as: Kazehakase browser > Sylpheed-Claws email app. > > http://www.fluxbuntu.org/js.html# > > The downsides are: > > Linux newbies might struggle with using the Fluxbox window manager as it's > not anything like Gnome or KDE desktop. > > It looks like the latest stable ver. is 7.x, so they're a bit behind on the > dev curve. Also since it probably has a much smaller user community, > getting > help when you need it might be a bit harder... > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug