Re: Speed of Java (was: Linux on old laptop in two stages)
On 6/6/06, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm mildly curious about things like GCJ (http://gcc.gnu.org/java/),which aim to compile Java-the-language to machine code for the hostplatform (e.g., i386), rather than compiling to machine code for Java-the-machine.In particular, I'm wondering what kind of impact,if any, it has on performance and memory usage.I think Fedora (and OpenOffice) used GCJ to compile alot of the java apps associated with it. They got a big speedup and eliminated the need for a JVM for those apps.
Re: Speed of Java (was: Linux on old laptop in two stages)
First, I agree that the laptop mentioned above is probably underpowered for modern Java development. I'm fairly happy running Eclipse and other Java-based apps on my systems that are = 512MB / 1GHz, but haven't done much on anything smaller for a few years. For that machine if the user is only planning on executing fairly basic apps then it may be fine but much more... That being said, the Java is slow discussion is one that is sticking around as a concept longer than reality may justify. Right up there with Linux is not ready for the desktop. I actively follow some Java game developer's forums and am playing with some of the newer technologies out there. Some of what's being down now is as fast and responsive as traditional 3D games on the market. There are definetly BAD examples of Java performance as well, but there are bad examples of any language. Some good reading for anyone interrested in this issue: http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Games/JeffOnPerformance insert disclaimers -L ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speed of Java (was: Linux on old laptop in two stages)
On 6/6/06, Lawrence Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Games/JeffOnPerformance There seem to be an awful lot of exceptions and conditions in there. For example, the author states you should have a modern JIT compiler (whatever modern means), and ignore all the time at the start where JIT optimization hasn't happened yet and is in fact making things slower. Well, that's sure convenient. Many of the Java programs I have to use, I only use for brief periods of time -- that same time I'm supposed to ignore. So I guess I should ignore Java entirely! ;-) Likewise, the J2ME/CLDC exception. The author never specifies what slow and very limited mean. From what I gather from Java people here on *this* list, it sounds like less than 512 megabytes is limited in Java terms. ;-) I also noticed that the benchmarks the author links to are focused on math heavy operations. All the Java programs I have to use aren't doing lots of math, but rather, things like string manipulation, network protocol, systems management, databases, etc. Maybe that's significant. The other Java stuff I have to use is the random Java applets I encounter on the web. And, without fail, every time I encounter one, the browser grinds to a halt. Blame it on whatever you want, but that's real world experience where Java == slow. Doze and Nix both. Firefox and MSIE. MS-VM and Sun JRE. Maybe there's a fast JVM out there that all the smart Java people are using, but for everyone else, it sucks mud. I really find this a shame, as Java-the-language seemed pretty nice to me when I was exposed to it years ago. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speed of Java (was: Linux on old laptop in two stages)
I've always wondered: could you build a distro of linux that has native java support? when you think about how java works, it compiles programs to byte code, which is then executed on each platform by a virtual machine. what if someone created a linux kernel that could directly interpret and execute this byte code? programs could have direct access to system resources, and it wouldn't be up to a virtual machine to handle memory management and other areas that affect efficiency. my biggest problem with java is that every java app i use FEELS bulky, even on a crazy high-end desktop. practically, they run just fine. but i don't want to wait an extra half-second damnit. nothing feels as nice as a UI written in C/C++ and powered by either openGL or native windowing methods of an OS. Java is great to work in since the java library has methods for practically everything (DishWasher dishwasher = new DishWasher.WashMyDishes()), but I can never get used to the laggy feel. -chris Ben Scott wrote: On 6/6/06, Lawrence Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Games/JeffOnPerformance There seem to be an awful lot of exceptions and conditions in there. For example, the author states you should have a modern JIT compiler (whatever modern means), and ignore all the time at the start where JIT optimization hasn't happened yet and is in fact making things slower. Well, that's sure convenient. Many of the Java programs I have to use, I only use for brief periods of time -- that same time I'm supposed to ignore. So I guess I should ignore Java entirely! ;-) Likewise, the J2ME/CLDC exception. The author never specifies what slow and very limited mean. From what I gather from Java people here on *this* list, it sounds like less than 512 megabytes is limited in Java terms. ;-) I also noticed that the benchmarks the author links to are focused on math heavy operations. All the Java programs I have to use aren't doing lots of math, but rather, things like string manipulation, network protocol, systems management, databases, etc. Maybe that's significant. The other Java stuff I have to use is the random Java applets I encounter on the web. And, without fail, every time I encounter one, the browser grinds to a halt. Blame it on whatever you want, but that's real world experience where Java == slow. Doze and Nix both. Firefox and MSIE. MS-VM and Sun JRE. Maybe there's a fast JVM out there that all the smart Java people are using, but for everyone else, it sucks mud. I really find this a shame, as Java-the-language seemed pretty nice to me when I was exposed to it years ago. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speed of Java (was: Linux on old laptop in two stages)
could you build a distro of linux that has native java support? While it'd certainly take some serious work, I can't think of any technical reason why you couldn't -- and that would probably put the speed issue to bed once and for all. And of course, that possibility was likely one of the reasons Microsoft was so worried about Java that they resorted to breaking the law to try to kill it. Regards, . Randy -- The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -- Albert Einstein ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speed of Java (was: Linux on old laptop in two stages)
On 6/6/06, Christopher Chisholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: when you think about how java works, it compiles programs to byte code, which is then executed on each platform by a virtual machine. Correct. what if someone created a linux kernel that could directly interpret and execute this byte code? You'd be doing nothing more (or less) then implementing a Java VM in kernel space, which wouldn't really get you a whole lot, and would cause all sorts of *other* headaches. I'm mildly curious about things like GCJ (http://gcc.gnu.org/java/), which aim to compile Java-the-language to machine code for the host platform (e.g., i386), rather than compiling to machine code for Java-the-machine. In particular, I'm wondering what kind of impact, if any, it has on performance and memory usage. programs could have direct access to system resources, and it wouldn't be up to a virtual machine to handle memory management and other areas that affect efficiency. I was under the impression that one of the fundamental design assumptions of Java is that you don't have direct access to things. Many would argue that this is a strength -- you don't have problems like buffer overflows, double-free()'s, memory leaks due to forgetting to free(), etc. Given the bugs I encounter in programs every day, I'm inclined to agree that many of the people writing software can't manage such things reliably. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 6/4/06, Tech Writer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... 150 MHz Pentium ... 40MB RAM ... Some of my son's friends have decided to learn Java this summer ... Be warned that Java may be unbearably slow on that system. (Given that it's irritatingly slow on much newer systems.) By what measurement do you determine that Java is slow, and compared to what? Is it slower for developement, or just running it? Is it slow compared to C, or Lisp, or Visual Basic? Are you doing systems programming with it or distributed systems application development? To say X is slow is not only misleading, but actually a useless and baseless charge without any context or reference. -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Speed of Java (was: Linux on old laptop in two stages)
On 6/5/06, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Be warned that Java may be unbearably slow on that system. (Given that it's irritatingly slow on much newer systems.) By what measurement do you determine that Java is slow ... My measurement is qualitative, not quantitative. Everything that uses Java that I've ever encountered on any machine takes a long time to start and uses up gobs and gobs of memory, regardless of how trivial the program. Interactive programs all have a somewhat unresponsive UI, and go non-responsive for seconds at a time at seemingly random intervals. IME. YMMV. FWIW. HAND. ... and compared to what? Compared to molasses crawling backwards uphill in January. ;-) Okay, that one might not be all that scientific. ;-) Is it slower for developement, or just running it? Running software in the JVM/JRE. It could be that compiling Java-source to Java-bytecode is fast and low-memory; I wouldn't know. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages
Oh... and as a side note... I'm encouraged that there are four or five 14-year olds who want to learn more about Linux and Java, so I'd like to try to support them as much as possible... I've actually got a second old laptop (Toshiba Satellite Pro, Pentium MMX processor, 80 MB RAM with 1.34 GB hard drive) that I'm hoping I can also make useful for one of these kids to experiment with this summer, if possible. Peg - Original Message - From: Bill Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tech Writer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: GNHLUG User Group gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 9:57 PM Subject: Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages Ubuntu is a great desktop Linux distro, but I'd suspect it's not going to perform nicely on an older laptop like that. There's a new Xubuntu derivative that is using Xfce windowing for older hardware, will supposedly give you the best of both worlds -- light weight distro with the Ubuntu elan and bug-fixes, but optimized for (and packages selected for) Win95/Win98 era hardware. If and when I reclaim an old Win98 box here, I'll try Xubuntu and Damn Small Linux, Vector, Puppy. A review of other distros for old hardware was recently posted http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/02/13/1854251 and you can get more information on the individual distros at http://distrowatch.com/ The installation steps vary depending just HOW old your hardware is. Most Gnu/Linux Distros install from a bootable CDrom. If you can set the BIOS to boot from the CDrom, you can install straight from the CD. (When booting, there's probably a message that flashes by early on that says something about hit some F-key (possibly in combination) to adjust/edit BIOS or CMOS or boot options. Just be sure the CD is before the hard-drive in boot order. And follow instructions on how to save before exiting setup. And don't change anything you don't need to.) If your old laptop can't boot from CDrom, you'll need either a runs-from-DOS installer or a boot-CD mini-installer, same as for Windows-98. Some distros have one, some the other, some may not support either. Good luck, -- Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages
Thanks for the feedback I'm assuming that it won't boot off the CD, since I remember the complicated way I had to get Windows on it way back when I actively used this machine. But, I'll try the kit I just built and let you know. Also, I appreciate the pointer to the distributions that work well on old machines... I think I may try DSL once I figure out the best way to get this system loaded. Peg - Original Message - From: Bill Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tech Writer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: GNHLUG User Group gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 9:57 PM Subject: Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages Ubuntu is a great desktop Linux distro, but I'd suspect it's not going to perform nicely on an older laptop like that. There's a new Xubuntu derivative that is using Xfce windowing for older hardware, will supposedly give you the best of both worlds -- light weight distro with the Ubuntu elan and bug-fixes, but optimized for (and packages selected for) Win95/Win98 era hardware. If and when I reclaim an old Win98 box here, I'll try Xubuntu and Damn Small Linux, Vector, Puppy. A review of other distros for old hardware was recently posted http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/02/13/1854251 and you can get more information on the individual distros at http://distrowatch.com/ The installation steps vary depending just HOW old your hardware is. Most Gnu/Linux Distros install from a bootable CDrom. If you can set the BIOS to boot from the CDrom, you can install straight from the CD. (When booting, there's probably a message that flashes by early on that says something about hit some F-key (possibly in combination) to adjust/edit BIOS or CMOS or boot options. Just be sure the CD is before the hard-drive in boot order. And follow instructions on how to save before exiting setup. And don't change anything you don't need to.) If your old laptop can't boot from CDrom, you'll need either a runs-from-DOS installer or a boot-CD mini-installer, same as for Windows-98. Some distros have one, some the other, some may not support either. Good luck, -- Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages
On Monday 05 June 2006 08:35 am, Paul Lussier wrote: By what measurement do you determine that Java is slow, and compared to what? Is it slower for developement, or just running it? Is it slow compared to C, or Lisp, or Visual Basic? Are you doing systems programming with it or distributed systems application development? To say X is slow is not only misleading, but actually a useless and baseless charge without any context or reference. I'm guessing he says it's slow to use. And no, it's not that Java is slow... but that everything you need to run Java is slow. I always hear people complain that Java isn't slow anymore, but have yet to see it. I don't run the most modern hardware these days, but it was fast a few years ago and I hate whenever I get around to starting up a Java applet or something or other. The JVM takes forever to load and everything else will run dog slow while it is there. I may be wrong and maybe I'm just an idiot when it comes to running my own systems... but I get a little annoyed when every time this topic comes up, someone chimes in and says Java isn't slow without providing any pointer to the apparently simple option I must be missing that makes a JVM kick into gear and run like other stuff. It has its merits, but speed never has been one of them. -N ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages
On 6/4/06, Tech Writer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got an old Gateway Solo 2100 laptop with 150 MHz Pentium processor, 40MB RAM and 1.34 GB hard vdrive. It's been sitting in the corner collecting dust, and still contains Windows-98. Some of my son's friends have decided to learn Java this summer, so I was hoping I could install a small Linux on this, and let them use it as a test system.Hmm, I used to run Mandrake 7.2/Redhat 7.x on a P150 w/ 80MB and 1.3GB. I was able to use a cable to get the floppy to boot 1st and then use the CD. If it can boot from CD, you're all set. You could try an NFS or FTP install. You need a machine to serve NFS/FTP though.
Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages
Context is unnecessary if, for example, Java is unbearably slow compared to nearly everything. The only things I've seen that are slower than (aggregate of all Java apps I've seen and used) are e.g. field simulators or modal analysis simulation tools... and since they're doing a lot of hardcore math it's not unexpected. I *am* a bit confused, however, since if I search for Java benchmark I get lots of pages saying something along the lines of Java used to be slow but now it isn't. Contrairwise, I personally use a few Java applets for which I also have non-Java equivalents, and several of our competitors have products similar to ours (but with beefier processors) and run Java front ends... and in every case the Java production code is much, much slower than the non-Java code. (The other code is, variously, in PHP, mod_perl, and C.) I hear the peanut gallery waiting to say but you can't compare different apps/implementations - bollocks I can't. Toyotas and Fords are wildly different implementations of objects of type car, yet it is both useful and accepted to make blanket statements about them. :-) You are welcome to disagree, but unless you plan on rewriting all the Java apps that turn out to be slower than I expect them to be based on my experiences with similar non-Java apps, you are unlikely to change my opinion. Flame away... --DTVZ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages
A lot of the claims to the effect of Java is much faster nowadays are based on the fact that typical Java implementations nowadays include much better JIT (Just In Time) compilers. Translating an application's interpreted Java bytecode into native machine code can yield some very large performance gains. I'm not sure what the current state of the art is with Java *applets* is, however. I wouldn't be surprised if these things did not get run through the JIT compiler. It is also very possible that JVM's that run on Windows are more efficient than those that you typically see under Linux -- this is where most of the brainpower in this space is concentrated. YMMV. --kevin -- GnuPG ID: B280F24E And the madness of the crowd alumni.unh.edu!kdc Is an epileptic fit -- Tom Waits ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speed of Java (was: Linux on old laptop in two stages)
On 6/5/06, Kevin D. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is also very possible that JVM's that run on Windows are more efficient than those that you typically see under Linux ... My personal experience is that the Sun Java VM is just as slow under Windows as it is under Linux, so I don't think that's it. Again, FWIW, IME, IMO, YMMV, TLA, ETLA, TMA, etc. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speed of Java (was: Linux on old laptop in two stages)
Ben Scott wrote: My measurement is qualitative, not quantitative. Everything that uses Java that I've ever encountered on any machine takes a long time to start and uses up gobs and gobs of memory, regardless of how trivial the program. Interactive programs all have a somewhat unresponsive UI, and go non-responsive for seconds at a time at seemingly random intervals. I use Oracle JDeveloper (free as in beer: http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/jdev/index.html) quite a bit and I've not noticed the problems that you have other than taking a 'long time' to start, maybe... Certainly no more than any other very large and sophisticated IDE. JDeveloper is written in Java. JDeveloper includes a code profiler that will help you write better Java code. When the developers finished the code profiler they ran the JDeveloper product code through the profiler and got a pretty noticeable improvement in performance. There are more than 6000 Oracle Applications (Oracle Applications, Siebel, PeopleSoft, and a bunch of other companies we've acquired over the years) developers at Oracle who are using JDeveloper and they all want their tools to run fast. They wouldn't be happy with the kind of performance that you describe below. Not only that, but the developers who write the other tools at Oracle (Portal, XML Publisher, BPEL Designer, etc.) all use JDeveloper, many on Linux. My own personal experience: I've got a 1.6GHz Pentium laptop with 2GB of ram and I'm able to run the below in quite a usable manner: Windows XP Professional base operating system VMWare image with the following: Windows XP Professional OS Oracle Enterprise Edition 10g Oracle Application Server Enterprise Edition 10g Oracle BPEL Process Manager Oracle JDeveloper That's a LOT of software to run on a 2GB machine. I've also run JDeveloper on a Linux VM running X and didn't notice the kind of performance you are describing below. JDeveloper is a great big huge Java program that you can download for free... Want to give it a try and let us know what you think? Rich ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speed of Java (was: Linux on old laptop in two stages)
On 6/5/06, Richard Soule [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a 1.6GHz Pentium laptop with 2GB of ram and I'm able to run the below in quite a usable manner: Keep in mind the context of the original post was a 100 MHz laptop with 40 MB of RAM. Your video subsystem prolly has more RAM then that whole laptop. My own experience is mainly on PCs with 128 MB or 256 MB of RAM, in the 1 GHz range. The fact that an IDE runs well on a machine with more RAM then the capacity of my first four hard drives combined doesn't really impress me much. :-) JDeveloper is a great big huge Java program that you can download for free... Want to give it a try and let us know what you think? Not in the least. :-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Java Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages
Yes, Java's recent speed comes from (a) JIT compilation (b) real static native compilation with optimization (e.g., JRocket) (c) running on really hot hardware. (And I do mean hot ... the 3.7GHz chips have more Watts per square inch than a hot plate! There's a reason you won't see commercial 4GHz chips in volume production ...) Applets running in a browser would be able to benefit from JIT if the browser plugin includes that feature. I haven't checked to see if they do. But for learning Java, the speed may not matter as long as the program (and debugger) _runs_ . Assuming they don't want to use Commandline-only Linux, that probably mean Fluxbox or Xfce or one of the other lightweight alternative desktops instead of heavyweight Gnome and KDE, with a Distro optimized for old hardware (Xubuntu, DSL, Puppy, Vector, ..). I'm worried Eclipse won't fit on that laptop ... they'll may need to learn commandline tools and standalone lightweight editors (but pick one with syntax highlighting at least). -- Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Linux on old laptop in two stages
I've got an old Gateway Solo 2100 laptop with 150 MHz Pentium processor, 40MB RAM and 1.34 GB hard vdrive. It's been sitting in the corner collecting dust, and still contains Windows-98. Some of my son's friends have decided to learn Java this summer, so I was hoping I could install a "small" Linux on this, and let them use it as a test system. A colleaguesuggested I install Ubuntu Linux, so I downloaded a kit and put it onto CD. Here's my trouble... This system can only hold a floppy or CD drive (not both at the same time). With Windows, I had to install a "minimum" system using a bootable floppy. Then, after powering down, and swapping the floppy for the CD drive, I installed Windows-98. I'm not sure how to do the equivalent steps in Linux. Can someone either walk me through the steps, point me to on-line instructions. Thanks! Peg
Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages
On 6/4/06, Tech Writer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... 150 MHz Pentium ... 40MB RAM ... Some of my son's friends have decided to learn Java this summer ... Be warned that Java may be unbearably slow on that system. (Given that it's irritatingly slow on much newer systems.) This system can only hold a floppy or CD drive (not both at the same time). First question to ask would be, Can it boot from CD? Check the BIOS SETUP program for options. If that's not an option, another question might be, Does it support hot-swapping the FD and CD modules? If so, that might be a workable solution. Most of the Linux install systems I've encountered load from floppy to memory and then don't touch the FD again. Another possibility is a network install. If the laptop has either onboard Ethernet, or you have a PCMCIA Ethernet card you stick in it, you should be able to boot from floppy and then do the rest over the 'net. If none of that pans out... it should be possible to do a two stage install, as you describe. You'll need several pieces, though. One piece is a small, bootable DOS partition on the hard drive. Another piece is LOADLIN.EXE, which is a Linux boot loader that runs on DOS.Google finds it. Finally, you need copies of the Linux kernel and initial RAM disk image files from the install system of the distribution, along with the kernel command line from same. It should be possible to extract these from the distribution's install CD, but it might be a bit tricky. With all those pieces put together, you can stick the Linux install CD in the drive, boot DOS, then use LOADLIN to boot the install system, pointing it to the CD drive. What specific version of Ubuntu do you have? I might have the same version handy, and thus might be able to provide more specific assistance. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Linux on old laptop in two stages
Ubuntu is a great desktop Linux distro, but I'd suspect it's not going to perform nicely on an older laptop like that. There's a new Xubuntu derivative that is using Xfce windowing for older hardware, will supposedly give you the best of both worlds -- light weight distro with the Ubuntu elan and bug-fixes, but optimized for (and packages selected for) Win95/Win98 era hardware. If and when I reclaim an old Win98 box here, I'll try Xubuntu and Damn Small Linux, Vector, Puppy. A review of other distros for old hardware was recently posted http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/02/13/1854251 and you can get more information on the individual distros at http://distrowatch.com/ The installation steps vary depending just HOW old your hardware is. Most Gnu/Linux Distros install from a bootable CDrom. If you can set the BIOS to boot from the CDrom, you can install straight from the CD. (When booting, there's probably a message that flashes by early on that says something about hit some F-key (possibly in combination) to adjust/edit BIOS or CMOS or boot options. Just be sure the CD is before the hard-drive in boot order. And follow instructions on how to save before exiting setup. And don't change anything you don't need to.) If your old laptop can't boot from CDrom, you'll need either a runs-from-DOS installer or a boot-CD mini-installer, same as for Windows-98. Some distros have one, some the other, some may not support either. Good luck, -- Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
