Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.os.linux.advocacy
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
raylopez99  
View profile  
 More options Jul 7 2008, 7:50 pm
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc
From: raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Jul 7 2008 7:50 pm
Subject: Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Jul 7, 10:51 am, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> > Or start with a LiveCD version and add stuff from there.

> ...which will probably want to use more space than you have.

> A compressed LiveCD can easily break the 2G limit specified in the original troll.

So, if I understand correctly, a Live CD will pull stuff off the
internet (once you decide to burn the live CD contents into your HD as
an image file)?

So a Live CD "grows" larger than the 650 MB CD.  Then there's no
telling where this monster, cancerous LInux distro will stop, is
there?  It keeps growing and growing until it consumes and crashes
your HD!

SO, back to square one.  I have to essentially upgrade the HD (after I
get a SCSI controller card, since my BIOS is too old). But then if I
upgrade the HD, it might solve my original problem because with
Windows 2000 I will have a larger swap file partition (which is, like
Ghost points out, probably why the present old Windows 2000 system is
so slow).

SO, if I upgrade the HD, why would I want to switch to Linux then?
It's a moot point.

So, in short, Linux sucks and is unsuitable for a older machine.  So
much for the "Linux for poor people with old hardware" myth.

RL


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google