What's the best low-end supported Linux to use in a very old 2008 MacBook Pro?

[Ant]

Hello.

I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.

I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
again with it.

Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
--
Hump day! A slower week so far? 1 more win needed 4 GSW 2 beat BC 2morrow nite. Dang allergies & bodies!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

[John McCue]

Trimmed followups to: comp.os.linux.misc

In comp.os.linux.hardware Ant <a...@zimage.comant> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody;
> 2.4 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB
> HDD, NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El
> Capitan v10.11.6)) from early 2008. Its software are too old,
> unsupported, and too slow.

<snip>

Did you try this ?

https://distrowatch.com/
https://distrowatch.com/search.php

Good Luck
John

[Roger Blake]

On 2022-06-15, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
>
> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
> again with it.

I'm writing this on a 2004-vintage Acer laptop of similar specifications,
a Centrino-based system with 2GB memory and an old OCZ "Vertex" 30GB
SSD I had laying around. I'm running Lubuntu 18.04 on it and performance
is not bad. I expect though if I had left the original slow mechanical
drive in this thing it would be a lot more sluggish.

It can even play youtube videos, albeit in SD. The problem is that 18.04
was the last version to support 32-bit CPUs. I think your Core 2 Duo is
64-bit internally but with a 32-bit data bus. It can run 64-bit software
but with reduced performance compared to a full 64-bit CPU.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Robert Heller]

At Wed, 15 Jun 2022 23:16:33 -0000 (UTC) Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:

>
> On 2022-06-15, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
> > Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
> > GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
> > from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
> >
> > I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
> > suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
> > trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
> > wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
> > again with it.
>
> I'm writing this on a 2004-vintage Acer laptop of similar specifications,
> a Centrino-based system with 2GB memory and an old OCZ "Vertex" 30GB
> SSD I had laying around. I'm running Lubuntu 18.04 on it and performance
> is not bad. I expect though if I had left the original slow mechanical
> drive in this thing it would be a lot more sluggish.
>
> It can even play youtube videos, albeit in SD. The problem is that 18.04
> was the last version to support 32-bit CPUs. I think your Core 2 Duo is
> 64-bit internally but with a 32-bit data bus. It can run 64-bit software
> but with reduced performance compared to a full 64-bit CPU.

I think even newer versions support 32-bit CPUs, but 16.04 is the last version
with a 32-bit installer. One can install 16.04, and then do do-release-upgrade
to get to the more recent releases -- do-release-upgrade will go from 16.04 to
18.04, then doing it again will go to 20.04, then again to 22.04, and in a
couple of years, you should be able to go to 24.04...

If it can run 64-bit software it is in fact a 64-bit CPU. I don't think the
OS is going to care about the size of the *physical* data bus, so long as the
instruction set is 64-bit.

>

--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
hel...@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

[David W. Hodgins]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 19:16:33 -0400, Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:

> On 2022-06-15, Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
>> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
>> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
>> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
>>
>> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
>> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
>> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
>> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
>> again with it.
>
> I'm writing this on a 2004-vintage Acer laptop of similar specifications,
> a Centrino-based system with 2GB memory and an old OCZ "Vertex" 30GB
> SSD I had laying around. I'm running Lubuntu 18.04 on it and performance
> is not bad. I expect though if I had left the original slow mechanical
> drive in this thing it would be a lot more sluggish.
>
> It can even play youtube videos, albeit in SD. The problem is that 18.04
> was the last version to support 32-bit CPUs. I think your Core 2 Duo is
> 64-bit internally but with a 32-bit data bus. It can run 64-bit software
> but with reduced performance compared to a full 64-bit CPU.

If a 32 bit version is preferred, Mageia with xfce4 is an option. See
https://www.mageia.org/en-gb/downloads/
Select Live, then Xfce, then 32 bit.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

[Roger Blake]

On 2022-06-15, Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
> If it can run 64-bit software it is in fact a 64-bit CPU. I don't think the
> OS is going to care about the size of the *physical* data bus, so long as the
> instruction set is 64-bit.

Yes, it's a performance issue, not a software compatibility issue.
Reminiscent of the original IBM PC which had an 8088 CPU, a 16-bit
CPU with an 8-bit data bus.

[Roger Blake]

On 2022-06-16, David W. Hodgins <dwho...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> If a 32 bit version is preferred, Mageia with xfce4 is an option. See
> https://www.mageia.org/en-gb/downloads/
> Select Live, then Xfce, then 32 bit.

I know there are other 32-bit distributions around. I've become accustomed
to Ubuntu variants though since at least for me they tend to "just
work" for the most part. I'll look for something else if this ancient
laptop keeps working long enough. I've gotten too lazy in my old age
for Slackware.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 15/06/2022 19:42, Ant wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
>
> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
> again with it.
>
> Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)

In general Mint MATE is easy to install and covers most bases.

The Nvidia card will be OK, with an Nvidia driver. If its broadcom wifi
it will work with the correct driver, but never well IME.



--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

[Andreas Kohlbach]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:19:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 15/06/2022 19:42, Ant wrote:
>>
>> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4
>> Ghz
>> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM,

^^^^

>> 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El
>> Capitan v10.11.6)) from early 2008. Its software are too old,
>> unsupported, and too slow. I'm thinking about replacing them with
>> Linux, but which one would be suitable for it? I still want basic GUI
>> like web browsing. I remember trying doing the same for an old
>> PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its wifi to work with various Linux
>> installations. I hope this won't happen again with it. Thank you for
>> reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
>
> In general Mint MATE is easy to install and covers most bases.

I don't think even MATE will run smoothly with 2 GB RAM. Itself might,
but after opening only one GUI browser it might already run into a swap
orgy.

If the install media has enough space, install MATE and something
lightweight like Xfce parallel and choose MATE for login first if it
works. If not Xfce.

Hmm, just remember something called Blackbox (or Fluxbox)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbox> I used on a 512 MB machine in
2004 (the machine was from 1999 or something). Lightweight, but one has
to get used to it. IIRC most actions were performed with the right mouse
key.
--
Andreas

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In comp.os.linux.misc Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
> Yes, performance issue, because of the 2 GB RAM. The desktop manager is
> the "problem". Forget eye-candy and other "convenient" things with this
> old machine. Install something coming with Xfce or similar lightweight
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfce>.
>
> For convenience, choose a distribution which has it as default. But I
> suppose any up to date distribution will run fine, as long a the
> desktop manager was chosen wisely.

JWM is my pick. Star Linux is a Devuan-based distro which comes
with JWM as one of the options. It may not come with Mac drivers
pre-installed though, I know nothing about running Linux on Macs.
The 64-bit version runs very well on my Core 2 Duo laptop with 3GB
RAM (actually 4GB, but the 32-bit addressing range of the
32/64bit-CPU-compatible chipset limits it to 3GB usable because
other things have to squeeze into the address space as well). 2GB
RAM would also be plenty for it, there's only around 130MB RAM used
after booting up to the desktop.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[Robert Heller]

At Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:29:15 -0400 Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:

>
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 02:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-06-15, Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
> >> If it can run 64-bit software it is in fact a 64-bit CPU. I don't think the
> >> OS is going to care about the size of the *physical* data bus, so long as the
> >> instruction set is 64-bit.
> >
> > Yes, it's a performance issue, not a software compatibility issue.
> > Reminiscent of the original IBM PC which had an 8088 CPU, a 16-bit
> > CPU with an 8-bit data bus.
>

> 8086 actually (yes, the original IBM PC has a 8088).

>
> Yes, performance issue, because of the 2 GB RAM. The desktop manager is
> the "problem". Forget eye-candy and other "convenient" things with this
> old machine. Install something coming with Xfce or similar lightweight
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfce>.

For a really lightweight GUI, use FVWM as the window manager and disable the
file manager altogether. (I know, many people might find that "horrible".)

>
> For convenience, choose a distribution which has it as default. But I
> suppose any up to date distribution will run fine, as long a the
> desktop manager was chosen wisely.

[25.BX945]

On 6/15/22 2:42 PM, Ant wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
>
> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
> again with it.
>
> Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
>

Try Antix ... it's pretty small, but has just enough
features and user-friendliness. DO replace those
inevitably DEPRESSING splash-screens though ....

Google "Lightweight Linux Distros" ... you will find a
number of choices. Some suck, others are kinda ok.
One or two could probably be run on the original
IBM-PCs. BUT ... you're really not bringing a huge
dose of hardware to the table so you'll have to take
what you can get.

A Core2-Duo really isn't all THAT horrible so long
as you're not using Winders) and 2GB is more than
plenty. Now if you were talking a 286 chip and 512Kb :-)
I still use a Core2-Quad for various tasks and it can
run MX real easy and Mint/LXDE adequately. I used it
as my main daily/development box until just a few
years ago - didn't need anything faster. The i5 G9
HexCore IS a bit snappier though ... I'll retire
before I need to replace that. Can't run 8/16-bit
executables though .......

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/06/2022 21:36, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:19:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> On 15/06/2022 19:42, Ant wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4
>>> Ghz
>>> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM,
> ^^^^
>>> 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El
>>> Capitan v10.11.6)) from early 2008. Its software are too old,
>>> unsupported, and too slow. I'm thinking about replacing them with
>>> Linux, but which one would be suitable for it? I still want basic GUI
>>> like web browsing. I remember trying doing the same for an old
>>> PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its wifi to work with various Linux
>>> installations. I hope this won't happen again with it. Thank you for
>>> reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
>>
>> In general Mint MATE is easy to install and covers most bases.
>
> I don't think even MATE will run smoothly with 2 GB RAM. Itself might,
> but after opening only one GUI browser it might already run into a swap
> orgy.
>

It will run OK but you will of course be more or less limited to one
program or browser window at a time. Firefox itself tends to eat up
well over 1GB just for starters. No matter what distro you use.

Here right now with thunderbird and firefox both open I am using about 3GB

Closing Firefox knocks it down to 2GB

Having an SSD for swap will help a lot, but of course its not the best
way to run an SSD.

I note that up to 4GB RAM is possible for this 64 bit machine, using
third party 'upgrade kits'. a tenner or so.

SSD is also not expensive.

Given the above, my advice would be to try and boot a live DVD of mint
MATE, and check Wifi works and see if any issues arise,

Then if it looks a way to go, take out the existing drive, upgrade the
RAM to the max and put in an SSD.

Then install MATE. Should be another decade of usefulness...

> If the install media has enough space, install MATE and something
> lightweight like Xfce parallel and choose MATE for login first if it
> works. If not Xfce.
>
> Hmm, just remember something called Blackbox (or Fluxbox)
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbox> I used on a 512 MB machine in
> 2004 (the machine was from 1999 or something). Lightweight, but one has
> to get used to it. IIRC most actions were performed with the right mouse
> key.


--

"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/06/2022 21:29, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 02:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:
>>

>> On 2022-06-15, Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>>> If it can run 64-bit software it is in fact a 64-bit CPU. I don't think the
>>> OS is going to care about the size of the *physical* data bus, so long as the
>>> instruction set is 64-bit.
>>
>> Yes, it's a performance issue, not a software compatibility issue.
>> Reminiscent of the original IBM PC which had an 8088 CPU, a 16-bit
>> CPU with an 8-bit data bus.
>

> 8086 actually (yes, the original IBM PC has a 8088).
>
> Yes, performance issue, because of the 2 GB RAM. The desktop manager is
> the "problem". Forget eye-candy and other "convenient" things with this
> old machine. Install something coming with Xfce or similar lightweight
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfce>.
>

> For convenience, choose a distribution which has it as default. But I
> suppose any up to date distribution will run fine, as long a the
> desktop manager was chosen wisely.

It is utterly pointless to get a 'lightweight' distro when any browser
invocation will immediately grab more than half the RAM.

If you want to run modern software at all, you need really >3GB RAM OR
an SSD swap disk. Or both,

IRRESPECTIVE OF DISTRO.

Fortunately this machine is upgradeable to both.

It is a question of whether you want a usable tool or a curiosity.


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/06/2022 21:29, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>> For convenience, choose a distribution which has it as default. But I
>> suppose any up to date distribution will run fine, as long a the
>> desktop manager was chosen wisely.
>
> It is utterly pointless to get a 'lightweight' distro when any browser
> invocation will immediately grab more than half the RAM.

Firefox seems to always expand to half or more of the available
RAM, but it doesn't seem to actually ruin performance to run it
with only 2 or 3GB so I guess it's just some sort of caching.

> If you want to run modern software at all, you need really >3GB RAM OR
> an SSD swap disk. Or both,
>
> IRRESPECTIVE OF DISTRO.

Not true, I do everything with neither. Fancy desktop environments
chew up a stupid amount of system resources making everything seem
slow. Compare default Fedora with AntiX or Star on a slow machine
and you'll see for yourself.

[The Natural Philosopher]

As I said, if you *dont* want to run modern software like firefox or
thunderbird, all bets are off.

Fancy desktop environments actually use surprisingly little memory over
and above the X-windows abomination..


--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 17/06/2022 12:58, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Even a 10 year old MAC OSX has to be better than openbox


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

[Roger Blake]

On 2022-06-17, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> It is utterly pointless to get a 'lightweight' distro when any browser
> invocation will immediately grab more than half the RAM.

I routinely run both Firefox and Chromium at the same time on my old
2GB laptop with no problems. (2GB is the maximum this particular
laptop can accept.)

[Robert Heller]

At Fri, 17 Jun 2022 17:35:28 -0000 (UTC) Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:

>
> On 2022-06-17, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > It is utterly pointless to get a 'lightweight' distro when any browser
> > invocation will immediately grab more than half the RAM.
>
> I routinely run both Firefox and Chromium at the same time on my old
> 2GB laptop with no problems. (2GB is the maximum this particular
> laptop can accept.)

As was I. Ubuntu 18.04 / Mate (disabled caja [file manager], replaced WM with
FVWM). I even regularly ran KiCAD, Fritzing, and FreeCAD019 on it too. No
real problems (*never* ran any sort of office productivity software).

I current have a Banana Pi M64 (quad core Arm64 machine) with 2G of ram. Works
well -- Armbian 22.02.1, Xfce (with no file manager, using fvwm as the window
manager). Can run multiple Firefox windows, sometimes KiCAD.

Hell, I occansionly run Chromium on a Pi 2 with 1 gig of RAM (but I'd like to
upgrade this Pi 2 to a Pi 4, once Pi 4s become available again).

[Roger Blake]

On 2022-06-17, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> It is utterly pointless to get a 'lightweight' distro when any browser
> invocation will immediately grab more than half the RAM.

Now looking at this with my 2GB 32-bit Centrino laptop from 2004.

Chromium is open with 4 tabs (4 sites), one of which is playing a youtube
video. Firefox is also open with 2 tabs on different sites. Also the
terminal with a few tabs. The "htop" utility is showing about 1.14GB
used out of an available 1.96GB. Swap is using about 92MB. The 2 CPU
cores are fluctuating, of course, each between about 40% and 80%
utilization.

This is with Lubuntu 18.04 (LXDE desktop). Seems pretty reasonable to me
for a laptop this old.

> It is a question of whether you want a usable tool or a curiosity.

Works fine for puttering around and doing light tasks.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/06/2022 12:58, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> If you want to run modern software at all, you need really >3GB RAM OR
>>> an SSD swap disk. Or both,
>>>
>>> IRRESPECTIVE OF DISTRO.
>>
>> Not true, I do everything with neither. Fancy desktop environments
>> chew up a stupid amount of system resources making everything seem
>> slow. Compare default Fedora with AntiX or Star on a slow machine
>> and you'll see for yourself.
>>
> Even a 10 year old MAC OSX has to be better than openbox

If that's your view then it just comes down to a matter of personal
preference. Openbox works for me (though I usually use JWM, which
is an installation option for AntiX and Star as well), and a lot of
the extra "features" in more bloated WMs/DEs are things that I
don't find helpful anyway. For that matter a lot of similar things
that 10 year old Mac OSX did annoyed me as well, with the miniscule
experience I had of it.

So perhaps such old PCs wouldn't be usable the way _you_ like
things set up, but for many other people there's no problem.

[John Goerzen]

On 2022-06-16, Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-06-16, David W. Hodgins <dwho...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> If a 32 bit version is preferred, Mageia with xfce4 is an option. See
>> https://www.mageia.org/en-gb/downloads/
>> Select Live, then Xfce, then 32 bit.
>
> I know there are other 32-bit distributions around. I've become accustomed
> to Ubuntu variants though since at least for me they tend to "just
> work" for the most part. I'll look for something else if this ancient
> laptop keeps working long enough. I've gotten too lazy in my old age
> for Slackware.
>

You might try Debian then; Debian still supports 32-bit x86, 32-bit ARM, MIPS,
etc.

According to https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s05.en.html you
needc 485MB of RAM and 920MB of disk space for the *current* version of Debian.
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch03s04.en.html elaborates some.
Debian supports both XFCE and LXDE in the standard distro, as well as non-DE
window managers that will be even lighter.

- John

[Piergiorgio Sartor]

On 15/06/2022 20.42, Ant wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
>
> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
> again with it.

Do you really believe that Linux, magically,
will make things faster, better?

A modern web browser alone will eat up all
the available RAM in few tabs...

bye,

--

piergiorgio

[25.BX945]

Good advice ... but I think his goal here is to not spend
enough extra money to buy a whole new pc :-)

More RAM, SSD ... probably a couple hundred right there.

I have a lot of virtual machines for practical/experimental/
review/fun purposes and almost never give them more than 2gb
and two cores. I'd say almost all have "adequate" performance,
so long as you don't cram KDE in there, for "average use".
My Kali VM is invaluable for probing those "suspicious" mails.
VMs aren't even as efficient as real hardware installations.

Mint is pretty nice and if you're careful can be reasonably
slim. I'd suggest LXDE over MATE however for old hardware.
MX is another good "medium" system that will run ok on
older hardware - and its cousin Antix is very light but
not quite as pretty.

Firefox ... there ARE about:config settings where you can
limit how much memory it hogs. A lot of it goes into plain
old buffers and you can cut back on the default number and
size. I've done it before. You may lose a litle "smoothness"
sometimes, but it'll run ok. Basically, Firefox will use up
a lot of your existing memory IF YOU LET IT. Run it on a
more restricted system and it'll scale itself down to match.

His Core2-Duo is not a terrible box ... not "snappy" in any
modern sense but adequate for the mid/lower-end Linux distros
so long as he isn't expecting a smokin' game box or unlimited
eye-candy. I only traded up from my Core2-Quad a couple of
years ago - and it was for work/development use. Still have it,
still put it to use as a testing platform. Runs 8/16-bit too :-)

In any case, Deb and derivatives run nicely on rPIs ... and
only the latest are in the Core2-Duo performance range.
512kb - 1gb is common on Pi-2/3s. I think the Pi-4 is faster
than a couple of my sub-notebooks. Just re-did a Pi-1-B (not +)
with the latest OS ... but it doesn't run a GUI ... mostly
plays a loop of 'elevator music' and has for nearly 10 years.

[Robert Heller]

I've run Firefox with with like 6-8 windows (maybe as many as 10-12 tabs
total) on a machine with only 2 Gig of RAM (still do [different machine]). I
had an Lenovo laptop with 2G (Intel x86_64 processor) and now have a Banana Pi
M64 with 2Gig (64-bit ARM). I ran Ubuntu 18.04 with MATE (FM [caja] disabled,
FVWM as the window manager) on the Lenovo. I current run Armian 22.02 on the
Banana Pi, which has Xfce as the GUI, again with the FM disabled and fvwm as
the window manager. I have no trouble with multiple FF windows and tab. As
many 7 windows, with a few with more than on tabs (generally one tab/window).
Most of the this is not a problem. I *don't* use OO (or any "office"
programs.

I also have a Pi 2 with 1 gig of RAM and occasionally run chromium on it. It
does work.

I would not consider a machine with only 2G to be unusable, if one is careful
about how things are set up -- stripping excess "junk" from the desktop
environment. Getting rid of the (obibgitoy) file manager is always my first
thing to get rid of. Also, probably getting rid of word processing software
as well.

>
> bye,

[Piergiorgio Sartor]

On 19/06/2022 02.33, Robert Heller wrote:
[...]

>>> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
>>> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
>>> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
>>> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
>>> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
>>> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
>>> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
>>> again with it.
>>
>> Do you really believe that Linux, magically,
>> will make things faster, better?
>>
>> A modern web browser alone will eat up all
>> the available RAM in few tabs...
>
> I've run Firefox with with like 6-8 windows (maybe as many as 10-12 tabs
> total) on a machine with only 2 Gig of RAM (still do [different machine]). I

Oh, come on!

Wasn't enough clear the example?

12 tabs with what? All with heavy javascript,
graphics, animations, videos?

And having also "libreoffice" with some large
document(s) open?

And... And... And...

The point is that the "desktop usage", or
"web browsing" means nothing.

If the system is slow with the current OS,
does not mean that Linux will make it
suddenly faster. By magic.

Clearly, one can strip down everything and
browse the web with "lynx" or "links" or
whatever is that.

Is this what the OP wants?

bye,

--

piergiorgio

[Robert Heller]

At Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:25:15 +0200 Piergiorgio Sartor? <piergiorgio.sartor.th...@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> wrote:

>
> On 19/06/2022 02.33, Robert Heller wrote:
> [...]
> >>> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
> >>> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
> >>> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
> >>> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
> >>>
> >>> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
> >>> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
> >>> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
> >>> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
> >>> again with it.
> >>
> >> Do you really believe that Linux, magically,
> >> will make things faster, better?
> >>
> >> A modern web browser alone will eat up all
> >> the available RAM in few tabs...
> >
> > I've run Firefox with with like 6-8 windows (maybe as many as 10-12 tabs
> > total) on a machine with only 2 Gig of RAM (still do [different machine]). I
>
> Oh, come on!
>
> Wasn't enough clear the example?
>
> 12 tabs with what? All with heavy javascript,
> graphics, animations, videos?

Generally not videos, maybe animated ads (depends on what E-bay might be up
to). .

>
> And having also "libreoffice" with some large
> document(s) open?

I don't use LibrOffice... OTOH, I did use FreeCAD, KiCaD, and Fritzing on the
Lenovo with only 2G and these programs worked reasonably well, as did Gimp.
And I did do medium sized C++ compiles and non-trivial LaTeX runs.

>
> And... And... And...
>
> The point is that the "desktop usage", or
> "web browsing" means nothing.
>
> If the system is slow with the current OS,
> does not mean that Linux will make it
> suddenly faster. By magic.
>

I've only ever used Linux, so I have no clue as to how the machines(s) would
work with other O/Ss.

> Clearly, one can strip down everything and
> browse the web with "lynx" or "links" or
> whatever is that.
>
> Is this what the OP wants?

No clue. I was just describing my experience. OTOH, if he keeps he current
O/S, he is stuck with out-dated and unsupported O/S, which is probably bad.
He would be better (?) off with a modern up-to-date Linux system. Maybe not
super fast, but usable for basic web-browsing and light e-Mail.

The idea that one needs a zillion gig of RAM is as silly as the need for a car
< 2 years old. Many people drive cars 10 (or more) years old. The
"obsession" with getting a NEW computer every 2 years is insane. There are
lots of older machines that are quite usable for most use cases. Not, not so
good for heavy gaming or high end office work maybe, but certainly for use for
lightweight use cases.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The fact of the matter is that the only MINT installation that was
barely useable was on a notebook with less than 1GB RAM.

2GB is usable.

BUT the cost of upgrading to an SSD and 4GB is probably less than
$30...at which point its a totally new experience.

So its a question of value for money. Resale value of existing kit
approximately zero.

so for an opportunity cost of $30, you can get performance and build
quality that would cost $n00s


>
>>
>> bye,
>>
>


--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

[David W. Hodgins]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 06:25:15 -0400, Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.th...@nexgo.removethis.de> wrote:
> If the system is slow with the current OS,
> does not mean that Linux will make it
> suddenly faster. By magic.
>
> Clearly, one can strip down everything and
> browse the web with "lynx" or "links" or
> whatever is that.

I've switched friends and relatives from windows to linux. Their systems
were not supported by new versions of windows.

While it's obviously not going to make the machine any faster, the reduction
in back ground tasks doing things like checking for malware, and much less
bloat, allowed doing things like running firefox or libreoffice without
swapping. With windows there was heavy swap usage for the same tasks, and
much slower disk access as every access is checked by malware scanners.

This is on 2GB ram, 10 to 15 year old systems.

I have them running kde as it as features they want, but have disabled things
like indexing all files on disk.

I've recently switched them over to using ssd drives instead of hard drives,
as I've done on my own systems. The difference is very impressive.

The system I use myself for personal use has a bios date of 10/16/2012.
Granted in this system I have a quad core instead of a dual core, and 16GB of ram
instead of 2, and have been using ssd drives for a while, I'm happy with it's
performance level.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

[Robert Heller]

It is uncertain that a *Mac*Book is (easily) upgradable -- Apple has been
notorious for making it hard to upgrade -- *Apple* has a vested interest in
selling new machines. 2GB is indeed usable, even with something like Ubuntu
18.04.

Both Apple and M$ have a vested interest in people buying NEW computers on a
regular basis -- Apple because they directly make money selling the computers
and M$ indirectly through OEM License fees. Both companies stop support for
older computers by EOL'ing their O/S versions and writing their new O/S
versions not to work on older hardware. *Only Linux* continues to support
older hardware with up-to-date OS versions. Yes, no one is doubting that older
hardware is going to be slower, but for many use cases, it will perform well
enough.

>
> So its a question of value for money. Resale value of existing kit
> approximately zero.
>
> so for an opportunity cost of $30, you can get performance and build
> quality that would cost $n00s
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> bye,
> >>
> >
>
>

--

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 19/06/2022 15:25, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sun, 19 Jun 2022 13:49:42 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

>>
>> 2GB is usable.
>>
>> BUT the cost of upgrading to an SSD and 4GB is probably less than
>> $30...at which point its a totally new experience.
>
> It is uncertain that a *Mac*Book is (easily) upgradable -- Apple has been
> notorious for making it hard to upgrade -- *Apple* has a vested interest in
> selling new machines. 2GB is indeed usable, even with something like Ubuntu
> 18.04.

Thats why I checked online for upgrade kits for that actual laptop
before opening my mouth

Apple does not use non standard RAM or SSDS.


--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller

[25.BX945]

On 6/19/22 10:25 AM, Robert Heller wrote:

>
> Both Apple and M$ have a vested interest in people buying NEW computers on a
> regular basis -- Apple because they directly make money selling the computers
> and M$ indirectly through OEM License fees. Both companies stop support for
> older computers by EOL'ing their O/S versions and writing their new O/S
> versions not to work on older hardware. *Only Linux* continues to support
> older hardware with up-to-date OS versions. Yes, no one is doubting that older

> hardware is going to be slower, but for many use case, it will perform well
> enough.

Exactly. There's "well enough". If you want to play the
newest games, want all the eye-candy and more, then your
10-year-old box is NOT gonna manage that, even with Linux.

But "generally usable for most stuff", then Linux WILL
boost performance for free. The more you know how to
"tune" Linux, the more you can squeeze out of it on
old hardware.

I have old hardware - from Core2-Quads to Atoms to an
rPi-1-b (non+) and even a Core2-Duo - that, with Linux,
are still serving useful purposes. Why throw away what
WORKS ? Linux/BSD will let you stretch-out the lifetime
of that hardware. Hell, with an old Atom or C2-duo you
can run something like IPFire and have a wonderful
fully-empowered router/firewall vastly better than
any black box from WalMart. A C2-Duo is even strong
enough to run something like Kerio mail-server for
50+ biz users.

And as for memory-gobbling browsers, I know you CAN tweak
Firefox to make it far less greedy - yet still quite usable.
Buffer sizes & numbers .. check about:config .....

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 21/06/2022 05:48, 25.BX945 wrote:
> I have old hardware - from Core2-Quads to Atoms to an
>   rPi-1-b (non+) and even a Core2-Duo - that, with Linux,
>   are still serving useful purposes. Why throw away what
>   WORKS ? Linux/BSD will let you stretch-out the lifetime
>   of that hardware. Hell, with an old Atom or C2-duo you
>   can run something like IPFire and have a wonderful
>   fully-empowered router/firewall vastly better than
>   any black box from WalMart. A C2-Duo is even strong
>   enough to run something like Kerio mail-server for
>   50+ biz users.

We used to relegate our oldest hardware to running dns servers back in
the day, and once linux came along 386 Sxs ex desktop were repurposed
accordingly
lacing any x windows malarkey, they ran well enough on a couple of * MB
* of RAM..

--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker

[25.BX945]

Yep, Linux/BSD *can* work wonders ... within REASON
of course. There ARE useful roles for 'obsolete'
hardware. Why pay again ?

[Charlie Gibbs]

WARNING! You have committed blasphemy against The Economy.
Please step away from the keyboard and make no sudden moves.
A Consumer Re-Education squad will arrive shortly.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

[25.BX946]

On 6/22/22 12:23 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-06-22, 25.BX945 <25B...@nada.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/21/22 6:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/06/2022 05:48, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have old hardware - from Core2-Quads to Atoms to an
>>>>    rPi-1-b (non+) and even a Core2-Duo - that, with Linux,
>>>>    are still serving useful purposes. Why throw away what
>>>>    WORKS ? Linux/BSD will let you stretch-out the lifetime
>>>>    of that hardware. Hell, with an old Atom or C2-duo you
>>>>    can run something like IPFire and have a wonderful
>>>>    fully-empowered router/firewall vastly better than
>>>>    any black box from WalMart. A C2-Duo is even strong
>>>>    enough to run something like Kerio mail-server for
>>>>    50+ biz users.
>>>
>>> We used to relegate our oldest hardware to running dns servers back in
>>> the day, and once linux came along 386 Sxs ex desktop were repurposed
>>> accordingly lacing any x windows malarkey, they ran well enough on a
>>> couple of * MB * of RAM..
>>
>> Yep, Linux/BSD *can* work wonders ... within REASON
>> of course. There ARE useful roles for 'obsolete'
>> hardware. Why pay again ?
>
> WARNING! You have committed blasphemy against The Economy.
> Please step away from the keyboard and make no sudden moves.
> A Consumer Re-Education squad will arrive shortly.

Give Biden a chance and he WILL make it illegal to
use hardware more than five years old. He and Hunter
WILL get their kick-backs, of course ........

They'll CLAIM the old hardware is "energy inefficient"
and "insecure" and therefore MUST be replaced, often ...

Note Win-11 REQUIRING Gen-8 minimum plus a TPM "security"
chip. This on top of UEFI booting which stores who-knows-what
in that special little partition .........

And besides, the new hardware will have all the newest
spyware built right in.

Saw a news blurb today (UK I think, maybe BBC) that
said The State would now be keeping EXACT track of
almost ALL commercial transactions - "statistical
obligations" ya know ..... "profiles" built .....

When in question, When in Doubt, Follow the MONEY
and YOU'LL FIND OUT. (-me, so far as I know)

[Ant]

Thanks to all who answered! I wanted to try a live media before
installing. I couldn't even boot up MBP far with random errors. I used
Rufus, in an updated 64-bit W10 Pro. PC with
https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/11.3.0-live+nonfree/amd64/iso-hybrid/debian-live-11.3.0-amd64-xfce+nonfree.iso,
to make a bootable 8 GB USB flash stick.

Photos:
https://matrix.ross154.net/_matrix/media/r0/download/ross154.net/UtCzzdimSDXsSDkejfRsAlPb/ima_9c157e3.jpeg
https://matrix.ross154.net/_matrix/media/r0/download/ross154.net/rEXcninIChudPWCTIOsKTkGT/ima_70e42e4.jpeg
https://matrix.ross154.net/_matrix/media/r0/download/ross154.net/pGRdlmZycRXJoJOrUJsyCHJu/ima_97650d7.jpeg

I tried the same USB flash media on a 2012 MBP, and it had no problems
booting up. :/


In comp.os.linux.misc Ant <a...@zimage.comant> wrote:
> Hello.

> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.

> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
> again with it.

> Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)

--
Dang HDD's SMART errors & failed tests meaning it's from 2016, heat wave, body (tired, achy, & noisy), life, etc. Every1 is BUSY! :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

[25.BZ959]

On 6/26/22 12:59 AM, Ant wrote:
> Thanks to all who answered! I wanted to try a live media before
> installing. I couldn't even boot up MBP far with random errors. I used
> Rufus, in an updated 64-bit W10 Pro. PC with
> https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/11.3.0-live+nonfree/amd64/iso-hybrid/debian-live-11.3.0-amd64-xfce+nonfree.iso,
> to make a bootable 8 GB USB flash stick.
>
> Photos:
> https://matrix.ross154.net/_matrix/media/r0/download/ross154.net/UtCzzdimSDXsSDkejfRsAlPb/ima_9c157e3.jpeg
> https://matrix.ross154.net/_matrix/media/r0/download/ross154.net/rEXcninIChudPWCTIOsKTkGT/ima_70e42e4.jpeg
> https://matrix.ross154.net/_matrix/media/r0/download/ross154.net/pGRdlmZycRXJoJOrUJsyCHJu/ima_97650d7.jpeg
>
> I tried the same USB flash media on a 2012 MBP, and it had no problems
> booting up. :/
>
>
> In comp.os.linux.misc Ant<a...@zimage.comant> wrote:
>> Hello.
>> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
>> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
>> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
>> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
>> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
>> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
>> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
>> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
>> again with it.
>> Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)

> Dang HDD's SMART errors & failed tests meaning it's from 2016, heat
> wave, body (tired, achy, & noisy), life, etc. Every1 is BUSY! :(

Uhhhhhhhh ... bad SMART test = DO NOT USE !

I'd suggest SCRIPTING those SMART tests weekly at least.
Just run it from root cron, maybe have it send e-mails.

I can provide a fair example of such a script if you really
badly need it (personal/company particulars excluded, of
course)

You can do it all with bash ... basically run the smartctrl
short test on each drive and send the results to a file -
then probe the file for certain keywords and prepare your
final report from the results. I have several boxes that
do it every morning on all drives before biz hours. Some of
the others have web interfaces and run such tests themselves -
so you can just look at the reports. Anyway, a TAD clunky
but WORKS real good. You can smarten-up the tests using
something like a Python script instead, I've got one of
those, makes it easier to find keywords and format/mail
the reports. Simple, crude, gets it done.

Need to smarten-up the reports a bit so they'll ignore
really OLD, usually ATA, errors probably related to
bad shut-downs. The SMART report DOES list power-on
hours ... just gotta compare TODAYS power-on hours
vs when the ATA errors happened. Over, say, 250 hours
diff and it's not worth reporting.

[Ant]

In comp.os.linux.setup 25.BZ959 <25B...@nada.net> wrote:

> Uhhhhhhhh ... bad SMART test = DO NOT USE !

> I'd suggest SCRIPTING those SMART tests weekly at least.
> Just run it from root cron, maybe have it send e-mails.

> I can provide a fair example of such a script if you really
> badly need it (personal/company particulars excluded, of
> course)

> You can do it all with bash ... basically run the smartctrl
> short test on each drive and send the results to a file -
> then probe the file for certain keywords and prepare your
> final report from the results. I have several boxes that
> do it every morning on all drives before biz hours. Some of
> the others have web interfaces and run such tests themselves -
> so you can just look at the reports. Anyway, a TAD clunky
> but WORKS real good. You can smarten-up the tests using
> something like a Python script instead, I've got one of
> those, makes it easier to find keywords and format/mail
> the reports. Simple, crude, gets it done.

> Need to smarten-up the reports a bit so they'll ignore
> really OLD, usually ATA, errors probably related to
> bad shut-downs. The SMART report DOES list power-on
> hours ... just gotta compare TODAYS power-on hours
> vs when the ATA errors happened. Over, say, 250 hours
> diff and it's not worth reporting.

That's a different computer, not 2008 MacBook Pro.
--

Dang HDD's SMART errors & failed tests meaning it's from 2016, heat wave, body (tired, achy, & noisy), life, etc. Every1 is BUSY! :(

[25.BZ959]

2008 is pretty old ... but most Mac operating systems
since 2007 were actually Unix-based. Somewhere under
the hood there's fair Unix/Linux compatibility.

[Ant]

Over the hot weekend, I tried live Debian Bullseye v11.3
(https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current-live/amd64/iso-hybrid/debian-live-11.3.0-amd64-xfce.iso
and
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current-live/amd64/iso-hybrid/debian-live-11.3.0-amd64-standard.iso)
since I didn't want to touch the internal HDD yet. I used 8 GB USB flash
stick with non-default DD option in Rufus in an updated 64-bit W10 Pro
PC. Without DD, it wouldn't boot correctly which was weird/odd!

After connecting USB flash drive and pressing command+E when booting up MBP to get its boot drive selection, I had to:
1. At grub's menu, press E to edit kernel parameters.
2. Add "nomodeset" and "loglevel=7", and remove "quiet" before booting.
https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxquestions/comments/vdapv9/whats_the_best_lowend_supported_and_updated_linux/idrtbx5/ for the details.

Sheesh, this wasn't easy! :O

In comp.os.linux.hardware Ant <a...@zimage.comant> wrote:
> Hello.

> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.

> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
> again with it.

> Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)

--
Dang old hardwares failing, heat wave, body (tired and achy), life, etc. Everyone is BUSY! :(

[Ant]

In comp.os.linux.setup Ant <a...@zimage.comant> wrote:
> Over the hot weekend, I tried live Debian Bullseye v11.3
> (https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current-live/amd64/iso-hybrid/debian-live-11.3.0-amd64-xfce.iso
> and
> https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current-live/amd64/iso-hybrid/debian-live-11.3.0-amd64-standard.iso)
> since I didn't want to touch the internal HDD yet. I used 8 GB USB flash
> stick with non-default DD option in Rufus in an updated 64-bit W10 Pro
> PC. Without DD, it wouldn't boot correctly which was weird/odd!

> After connecting USB flash drive and pressing command+E when booting up MBP to get its boot drive selection, I had to:
> 1. At grub's menu, press E to edit kernel parameters.
> 2. Add "nomodeset" and "loglevel=7", and remove "quiet" before booting.
> https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxquestions/comments/vdapv9/whats_the_best_lowend_supported_and_updated_linux/idrtbx5/ for the details.

Oops. I meant https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxquestions/comments/vdapv9/whats_the_best_lowend_supported_and_updated_linux/idrteci/!

[David W. Hodgins]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:13:13 -0400, Ant <a...@zimage.comant> wrote:

> Over the hot weekend, I tried live Debian Bullseye v11.3
> (https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current-live/amd64/iso-hybrid/debian-live-11.3.0-amd64-xfce.iso
> and
> https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current-live/amd64/iso-hybrid/debian-live-11.3.0-amd64-standard.iso)
> since I didn't want to touch the internal HDD yet. I used 8 GB USB flash
> stick with non-default DD option in Rufus in an updated 64-bit W10 Pro
> PC. Without DD, it wouldn't boot correctly which was weird/odd!

It's not really weird. Normally rufus will alter the mbr of the usb stick
after copying the iso, to try and make it bootable.

When an iso image is already bootable, those alterations stop it from working
as the changes alter what were already correct values.

That's why dd or similar must be used so those values do not get altered.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

[Ant]

Interesting. I wonder Rufus doesn't say that.
--
Dang old computer hardwares failing, heat wave, body (tired and hurty), life, etc. Everyone is BUSY too! :(

[David W. Hodgins]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 19:02:31 -0400, Ant <a...@zimage.comant> wrote:
> Interesting. I wonder Rufus doesn't say that.

It was designed to take iso images that were written to be able to boot from
an optical (cd/dvd) drive and make them bootable on a usb stick.

As to why the rufus authors allow the dd option, but don't automatically select
it when using an iso image that needs it, you'd have to ask them. I suspect it's
because windows software isn't designed to read such iso images properly, so it
doesn't make it easy to detect, but as I haven't used windows on any of my systems
since windows 98, I don't know for sure. I have experience helping others with
newer versions of windows, but avoid it as much as I can.

Regards, Dave Hodgins