On 2022-06-15, Ant <ant@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 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.
On 2022-06-15, Robert Heller <heller@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.
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.
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 02:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:
On 2022-06-15, Robert Heller <heller@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.
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 02:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:
On 2022-06-15, Robert Heller <heller@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.
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.
If you want to run modern software at all, you need really >3GB RAM OR
an SSD swap disk. Or both,
IRRESPECTIVE OF DISTRO.
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@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.
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@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.
It is utterly pointless to get a 'lightweight' distro when any browser invocation will immediately grab more than half the RAM.
On 2022-06-17, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@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.)
It is utterly pointless to get a 'lightweight' distro when any browser invocation will immediately grab more than half the RAM.
It is a question of whether you want a usable tool or a curiosity.
On 17/06/2022 12:58, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> If you want to run modern software at all, you need really >3GB RAM OREven a 10 year old MAC OSX has to be better than openbox
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.
On 19/06/2022 12:31, Robert Heller wrote:
At Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:25:15 +0200 Piergiorgio Sartor? <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@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 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,
At Sun, 19 Jun 2022 13:49:42 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
2GB is usable.
BUT the cost of upgrading to an SSD and 4GB is probably less than
$30...at which point its a totally new experience.
It is uncertain that a *Mac*Book is (easily) upgradable -- Apple has been notorious for making it hard to upgrade -- *Apple* has a vested interest in selling new machines. 2GB is indeed usable, even with something like Ubuntu 18.04.
Both Apple and M$ 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.
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.
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..
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 ?
On 2022-06-22, 25.BX945 <25BZ495@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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 70:09:47 |
Calls: | 6,488 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,275,485 |