best distro for old laptop

steve · External Since: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 4

Hello all,

trying to reduce my leccy consumption .
Current box + monitor ~=220w , 15 hrs/day -> ~3kwh / day .

So as part of the economy drive , I thought I might be able to use
my wifes old toshiba satellite pro 430cdt ( *32MB* ram, 1.2GB hdd ,
120MHz pentium) laptop (has floppy and a cdrom attached) ,
as an economical (in power terms ~= 20w) work station where I can
code , maybe compile and debug the simpler bits of my project .
In the heavier coding bits on my normal box , I have 4/5 virtual
screens with 6 xterms each and one screen for googling ... so
clearly this laptop wont get anywhere near that , any idea what
it would support ?
(currently has win98se installed) .

I have booted with tomsrtbt ok and mounted the cdrom (just to test it).

Anyway I have distros going way back , and the first CD version I have
is a slackware set from 96 which says requires 4-8MB ram, and 12MB hdd
and is kernel 2.0 . Clearly in terms of vintage and box spec, this
matches quite well, but would it be best to use this or a less vintage
version of slack, (8.0,9.0,10.2 or my latest 11.0) or something else ?

Cheers ,

Steve Houseman

--

currently :
steve at houseman demon co uk | http://www.houseman.demon.co.uk/

Ian · External Since: Jun 03, 2007 Posts: 10

On 2 Jul, 09:07, s....RemoveThis@jackass.woolacombe.lnx () wrote:

> Anyway I have distros going way back , and the first CD version I have
> is a slackware set from 96 which says requires 4-8MB ram, and 12MB hdd
> and is kernel 2.0 . Clearly in terms of vintage and box spec, this
> matches quite well, but would it be best to use this or a less vintage
> version of slack, (8.0,9.0,10.2 or my latest 11.0) or something else ?

I've been trying to get Damn Small Linux to work on an old Compaq
Armada 1530 (133MHz + 88MB + 2GB). It installs fine, but I can't get X
working properly. Seems to be a known problem, something to do with
the Cirrus Logic graphics.

However ... I'd suggest giving DSL a go.

Ian

Nick Craig-Wood · External Since: Nov 24, 2004 Posts: 16

steve RemoveThis @jackass.woolacombe.lnx () <steve RemoveThis @jackass.woolacombe.lnx> wrote:
> trying to reduce my leccy consumption .
> Current box + monitor ~=220w , 15 hrs/day -> ~3kwh / day .

I have exactly this problem at home also! Except it is 3 servers on
nearly all the time...

> So as part of the economy drive , I thought I might be able to use
> my wifes old toshiba satellite pro 430cdt ( *32MB* ram, 1.2GB hdd ,
> 120MHz pentium) laptop (has floppy and a cdrom attached) ,
> as an economical (in power terms ~= 20w) work station where I can
> code , maybe compile and debug the simpler bits of my project .
> In the heavier coding bits on my normal box , I have 4/5 virtual
> screens with 6 xterms each and one screen for googling ... so
> clearly this laptop wont get anywhere near that , any idea what
> it would support ?

This box has almost exactly the spec of my first linux box (from
1997!). I used to run Redhat 4.2 on it. I ran fvwm IIRC on it now
and again, but I did nearly all of my work on it at the console. It
was permanently connected to the internet and got rooted. Oh happy
days Wink

You can only bump the RAM of your laptop to 48 MB by the look of it...

http://www.crucial.com/uk/store/listparts.aspx?model=Satellite+Pro+430CDT

I'd suggest xubuntu but that has a requirement of 64 MB of RAM
minimum.

I think I'd start with a minimal Debian then see what runs. You might
be able to run a light weight window manager (eg icewm). Word on the
street is that 2.4 kernels use less memory than 2.6 kernels.

32MB just isn't going to be enough RAM for compiling stuff at any
sensible speed, and definitely not if you want to use a modern C++
compiler.

Alternatively you could join a local freecycle group. People are
giving away PCs and laptops of 10 times better spec!

http://www.freecycle.org/

If you've got some cash to spend, then you could get one of these

http://linitx.com/viewcategory.php?catid=119&pp=116,118,119

Which start at about UKP 200 for a 533 Mhz box.

Or get yourself the cheapest of the cheap laptop (about UKP 300) - these
seem to use about 20W also if you enable all the powersaving
features.

--
Nick Craig-Wood <nick RemoveThis @craig-wood.com> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick

Ian · External Since: Jun 03, 2007 Posts: 10

On 2 Jul, 10:35, ruffreco....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
> s....TakeThisOut@jackass.woolacombe.lnx wrote:

> > So as part of the economy drive , I thought I might be able to use
> > my wifes old toshiba satellite pro 430cdt ( *32MB* ram, 1.2GB hdd ,
> > 120MHz pentium) laptop (has floppy and a cdrom attached) ...
>
> I would suggest you try Puppy Linux or Zenwalk.

>From the Zenwalk site:

++++++++

Hardware requirements

Zenwalk GNU/Linux is optimized for the i686 instruction set, but
backward compatible with i486. These are the minimal hardware
requirements to run Zenwalk in Xwindow mode, with correct performance
(some lower configs work - ie : PII - , but might be slow) :

* Pentium III class processor
* 128 Mb RAM
* 2Gb HDD

++++++++

Ian

ruffrecords · External Since: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 2

steve.TakeThisOut@jackass.woolacombe.lnx wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> trying to reduce my leccy consumption .
> Current box + monitor ~=220w , 15 hrs/day -> ~3kwh / day .
>
> So as part of the economy drive , I thought I might be able to use
> my wifes old toshiba satellite pro 430cdt ( *32MB* ram, 1.2GB hdd ,
> 120MHz pentium) laptop (has floppy and a cdrom attached) ,
> as an economical (in power terms ~= 20w) work station where I can
> code , maybe compile and debug the simpler bits of my project .
> In the heavier coding bits on my normal box , I have 4/5 virtual
> screens with 6 xterms each and one screen for googling ... so
> clearly this laptop wont get anywhere near that , any idea what
> it would support ?
> (currently has win98se installed) .
>
> I have booted with tomsrtbt ok and mounted the cdrom (just to test it).
>
> Anyway I have distros going way back , and the first CD version I have
> is a slackware set from 96 which says requires 4-8MB ram, and 12MB hdd
> and is kernel 2.0 . Clearly in terms of vintage and box spec, this
> matches quite well, but would it be best to use this or a less vintage
> version of slack, (8.0,9.0,10.2 or my latest 11.0) or something else ?
>
>
> Cheers ,
>
> Steve Houseman
>

I would suggest you try Puppy Linux or Zenwalk.

Ian

Paul Sherwin · External Since: Mar 20, 2007 Posts: 7

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:06:02 -0700, Ian wrote:

> On 2 Jul, 09:07, s....DeleteThis@jackass.woolacombe.lnx () wrote:
>
>> Anyway I have distros going way back , and the first CD version I have
>> is a slackware set from 96 which says requires 4-8MB ram, and 12MB hdd
>> and is kernel 2.0 . Clearly in terms of vintage and box spec, this
>> matches quite well, but would it be best to use this or a less vintage
>> version of slack, (8.0,9.0,10.2 or my latest 11.0) or something else ?
>
> I've been trying to get Damn Small Linux to work on an old Compaq
> Armada 1530 (133MHz + 88MB + 2GB). It installs fine, but I can't get X
> working properly. Seems to be a known problem, something to do with
> the Cirrus Logic graphics.
>
> However ... I'd suggest giving DSL a go.

I agree, a hard disk install of DSL is probably your best bet on this
hardware. You'll have problems running mainstream apps such as Firefox or
OpenOffice though, whatever the distro. You should try to
upgrade the memory if at all possible.

Paul

Colin Brough · External Since: Mar 29, 2004 Posts: 49

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:57:27 +0100, Paul Sherwin wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:06:02 -0700, Ian wrote:
>
>> On 2 Jul, 09:07, s....DeleteThis@jackass.woolacombe.lnx () wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway I have distros going way back , and the first CD version I have
>>> is a slackware set from 96 which says requires 4-8MB ram, and 12MB hdd
>>> and is kernel 2.0 . Clearly in terms of vintage and box spec, this
>>> matches quite well, but would it be best to use this or a less vintage
>>> version of slack, (8.0,9.0,10.2 or my latest 11.0) or something else ?
>>
>> I've been trying to get Damn Small Linux to work on an old Compaq
>> Armada 1530 (133MHz + 88MB + 2GB). It installs fine, but I can't get X
>> working properly. Seems to be a known problem, something to do with
>> the Cirrus Logic graphics.
>>
>> However ... I'd suggest giving DSL a go.
>
> I agree, a hard disk install of DSL is probably your best bet on this
> hardware. You'll have problems running mainstream apps such as Firefox or
> OpenOffice though, whatever the distro. You should try to
> upgrade the memory if at all possible.

I'm running Debian testing on a an old Dell (233MHz, 64Mb) and the
main problem is the RAM - once something like OpenOffice or Firefox
are up, they are just about usable for basic tasks, but don't ever try
and do more than one thing at a time!! (And my motherboard doesn't
support more than 64Mb RAM...)

Cheers

Colin

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Brough Colin.Brough.DeleteThis@blueyonder.invalid
(Replace .invalid with .co.uk to reply)

Gordon Henderson · External Since: Jun 10, 2007 Posts: 15

In article <faoml4-k13.ln1.TakeThisOut@jackass.woolacombe.lnx>,
<steve.TakeThisOut@jackass.woolacombe.lnx> wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>trying to reduce my leccy consumption .
>Current box + monitor ~=220w , 15 hrs/day -> ~3kwh / day .
>
>So as part of the economy drive , I thought I might be able to use
>my wifes old toshiba satellite pro 430cdt ( *32MB* ram, 1.2GB hdd ,
>120MHz pentium) laptop (has floppy and a cdrom attached) ,
>as an economical (in power terms ~= 20w) work station where I can
>code , maybe compile and debug the simpler bits of my project .
>In the heavier coding bits on my normal box , I have 4/5 virtual
>screens with 6 xterms each and one screen for googling ... so
>clearly this laptop wont get anywhere near that , any idea what
>it would support ?
>(currently has win98se installed) .
>
>I have booted with tomsrtbt ok and mounted the cdrom (just to test it).
>
>Anyway I have distros going way back , and the first CD version I have
>is a slackware set from 96 which says requires 4-8MB ram, and 12MB hdd
>and is kernel 2.0 . Clearly in terms of vintage and box spec, this
>matches quite well, but would it be best to use this or a less vintage
>version of slack, (8.0,9.0,10.2 or my latest 11.0) or something else ?

What you'll run into is not the actual Linux or OS part of it all,
but the bloat imposed by the GUI on top of that.

So you need a lightweight window manager.

My choice is Debian stable (currently codenamed Etch), and something
like fvwm2 as the window manager.

But I've been running that for (seemingly) ever on everything I've owned
or setup for others, so it's easy for me to say that! (And I ran fvwm on
Suns for many years before that - um. Maybe for the past 16 years!)

The key is to do the install in text-only mode, then while keeping things
as tight as possible, install the window manager and let it pull in what
it needs. Make sure it doesn't pull in "suggested" packages such as CUPS
and so on. Debian Etch doesn't include the compilers anymore either,
so that saves a bit of disk space.

However, I really think you'll be struggling with that little
memory... While the base systems can be kept tight, you'll wanting to
run something like firefox and that'll kill it stone dead )-: If you can
get more memory into it then that would be my first move - max it out -
256MB if possible.

Gordon

ruffrecords · External Since: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 2

Ian wrote:

> On 2 Jul, 10:35, ruffreco... DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>> s... DeleteThis @jackass.woolacombe.lnx wrote:
>
>> > So as part of the economy drive , I thought I might be able to use
>> > my wifes old toshiba satellite pro 430cdt ( *32MB* ram, 1.2GB hdd ,
>> > 120MHz pentium) laptop (has floppy and a cdrom attached) ...
>>
>> I would suggest you try Puppy Linux or Zenwalk.
>
>>From the Zenwalk site:
>
> ++++++++
>
> Hardware requirements
>
> Zenwalk GNU/Linux is optimized for the i686 instruction set, but
> backward compatible with i486. These are the minimal hardware
> requirements to run Zenwalk in Xwindow mode, with correct performance
> (some lower configs work - ie : PII - , but might be slow) :
>
> * Pentium III class processor
> * 128 Mb RAM
> * 2Gb HDD
>
> ++++++++
>
> Ian

Whoops

Ian

Rikishi 42 · External Since: Oct 27, 2005 Posts: 177

On 2007-07-02, steve.RemoveThis@jackass.woolacombe.lnx wrote:

> Anyway I have distros going way back , and the first CD version I have
> is a slackware set from 96 which says requires 4-8MB ram, and 12MB hdd
> and is kernel 2.0 . Clearly in terms of vintage and box spec, this
> matches quite well, but would it be best to use this or a less vintage
> version of slack, (8.0,9.0,10.2 or my latest 11.0) or something else ?

I'm typing this on an ancien DELL Lattitude. It's a little bit more recent
than yours. Pentium II mmx at 233MHz. 3GB HD, 128MB RAM.

I installed SUSE 10.0 on it, in text-only mode.
Works like a charm. Removed FD and HD after initial install, set the isntall
source to be my server (which has a copy of the DVD), and replaced them
bettaries. Nog it runs up to 14 hours on one load.

Only problem I see for you is RAM. With only 32MB, that's your limiting
factor. A recent default kernel just won't fit in it.

--
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying.
The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Douglas Adams

Lyn David Thomas · External Since: Mar 14, 2006 Posts: 9

steve DeleteThis @jackass.woolacombe.lnx wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> trying to reduce my leccy consumption .
> Current box + monitor ~=220w , 15 hrs/day -> ~3kwh / day .
>
> So as part of the economy drive , I thought I might be able to use
> my wifes old toshiba satellite pro 430cdt ( *32MB* ram, 1.2GB hdd ,
> 120MHz pentium) laptop (has floppy and a cdrom attached) ,
> as an economical (in power terms ~= 20w) work station where I can
> code , maybe compile and debug the simpler bits of my project .
> In the heavier coding bits on my normal box , I have 4/5 virtual
> screens with 6 xterms each and one screen for googling ... so
> clearly this laptop wont get anywhere near that , any idea what
> it would support ?
> (currently has win98se installed) .
>
> I have booted with tomsrtbt ok and mounted the cdrom (just to test it).
>
> Anyway I have distros going way back , and the first CD version I have
> is a slackware set from 96 which says requires 4-8MB ram, and 12MB hdd
> and is kernel 2.0 . Clearly in terms of vintage and box spec, this
> matches quite well, but would it be best to use this or a less vintage
> version of slack, (8.0,9.0,10.2 or my latest 11.0) or something else ?

Normally I'd suggest Vector Linux, the standard edition has lighter
weight aps - if that is too resource hungry then I'd suggest Deli Linux,
a very good Slackware derived distro, with very lightweight aps. Look
them up on distrowatch....

--
Lyn David Thomas "Windows [n.] A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell
to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded
for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't
stand one bit of competition." (Anonymous USEnet post)

steve · External Since: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 4

Hello ,

Many thanks to all who responded . Lots of interesting suggestions.

The spec is probably comparable with the first box I ran linux on
(cant actually remember) but have a hard job remembering how slow
tasks were , and how that affected the way I used it .

The ram is 32MB and the max is 48MB but (unsurprisingly) they dont
seem to make it anymore.

There is also the cost of this , my guess of the value of this laptop
as was with win98se on it , maybe 30 gbp ? Almost any upgrade would
cost more than it is worth in itself , but some of this is an
more an investigation as to whether it would be usable .

Took a look at freecycle but they wanted an essay on why I want to
join Smile

My main concern with a new or old distro is the size increase in
everything over time . Years ago I worked thru the boot/root howto
and got it all working (satisfying) , but at next upgrade the libc
increased and could no longer fit on a floppy Sad

I took the advice to use a modern distro and went with slack 10.2
(which I had) and first attempt filled up the disk , second left
me with ~290MB free , so investigated the suggested distros and deli
linux is targeted at old machines (486) and their test machine
is a 486 laptop with 16MB ram - seemed like the ideal match (never
heard of it before).

Had several problems but is now installed : uses 346MB and 763M free !
Now need to see how usable it is and how I can or will use it.
Need to find a space to use it ... currently balanced on top of
the radio .

fwiw, I have gone back and remeasured the power usage , but this time
have separated out the box and monitor (thought I had before but clearly
didnt). Power measurement by a maplin mains power meter.

box power (a7v333 mobo 1G ram , athlon xp1800 , ati 9600, kernel 2.6)
idling 126 w
xine 132 w (windowed or full screen)
100% cpu 150 w

Why does 100% cpu use more power ...I thought that the idle was done
as a tight loop , so that it would use full power (the kernel has acpi
compiled in but did not think it would have any effect) .

The monitor is a 17inch ctx run at 1600x1200 and I normally run it at
60% brightness and contrast .

plain b&w text ie console : 62 w
X 6 xterms 72
xine full screen 66
xine ! full screen 70

at 90% for both :
X 6 xterms 80
xine fs 67
xine ! full screen 78

ie ~8w max change for extra brightness and that with white xterms + black
print. So there is far more power than I thought used on the
monitor , and maybe that should be a sensible

so normal typing stuff takes 72w + 126w -> ~ 200w .

Have also bought a mobile athlon cpu from ebay but waiting for a new
cpu cooling fan ordered from novatech (been due in tomorrow for 7 days so
far) ... dont know what to expect of that (assuming it works).

fwiw, one problem I had, was that I can not get the laptop to boot off
the cdrom. I found on the slackware rootdisks section that they have
a smart boot manager that can stuff on a floppy , and will boot from
the floppy and offer a choice of bootable sources including the cdrom .

Thanks for the help and the suggestions,

Cheers,

Steve

--

currently steve at houseman demon co uk

web : http://www.houseman.demon.co.uk/

Gordon Henderson · External Since: Jun 10, 2007 Posts: 15

In article <9h6vl4-m13.ln1.RemoveThis@jackass.woolacombe.lnx>,
<steve.RemoveThis@jackass.woolacombe.lnx> wrote:

>My main concern with a new or old distro is the size increase in
>everything over time . Years ago I worked thru the boot/root howto
>and got it all working (satisfying) , but at next upgrade the libc
>increased and could no longer fit on a floppy Sad

That's progress for you!

I think it's still possible to put a full router implementation in a
floppy - maybe. It would have to be a damn tight system now, with a
kernel compiled for your hardware exact needs, and little if nothing
left over for anything else...

I put a reasonably well featured system in a 32MB IDE Flash drive,
but I've not tried hard to really fine-tune it (this is kernel, basic
untilities, web server and asterisk phone server) It runs out of 48MB
of RAM.

>I took the advice to use a modern distro and went with slack 10.2
>(which I had) and first attempt filled up the disk , second left
>me with ~290MB free , so investigated the suggested distros and deli
>linux is targeted at old machines (486) and their test machine
>is a 486 laptop with 16MB ram - seemed like the ideal match (never
>heard of it before).
>
>Had several problems but is now installed : uses 346MB and 763M free !
>Now need to see how usable it is and how I can or will use it.
>Need to find a space to use it ... currently balanced on top of
>the radio .

I'd now find some digital photo frame software and turn it into a
.... digital photo frame Wink

>fwiw, I have gone back and remeasured the power usage , but this time
>have separated out the box and monitor (thought I had before but clearly
>didnt). Power measurement by a maplin mains power meter.
>
>box power (a7v333 mobo 1G ram , athlon xp1800 , ati 9600, kernel 2.6)
>idling 126 w
>xine 132 w (windowed or full screen)
>100% cpu 150 w
>
>Why does 100% cpu use more power ...I thought that the idle was done
>as a tight loop , so that it would use full power (the kernel has acpi
>compiled in but did not think it would have any effect) .

AIUI, idle in the Linux kernel sits on the HLT instruction and effectively
waits for an interrupt to tell it what to do next, so that does a fairly
good job of reducing power in the kernel.

Try running cpuburn (eg. burnMMX) if you have it and then testing the power!

>so normal typing stuff takes 72w + 126w -> ~ 200w .

Think of it as 200W less heat you need to pump into the room in winter
(or this summer )-:

Gordon

Anahata · External Since: Feb 16, 2005 Posts: 27

steve.RemoveThis@jackass.woolacombe.lnx wrote:
>
> Why does 100% cpu use more power ...I thought that the idle was done
> as a tight loop , so that it would use full power

The idle is a halt instruction for exactly the converse reason i.e. to
use minimum power.

Any event that causes the CPU to do something is started by an interrupt
(even if it's only a timer interrupt)

Anahata

unopened · External Since: Jul 05, 2007 Posts: 1

On 2 Jul, 09:07, s... RemoveThis @jackass.woolacombe.lnx () wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> trying to reduce my leccy consumption .
> Current box + monitor ~=220w , 15 hrs/day -> ~3kwh / day .
>
> So as part of the economy drive , I thought I might be able to use
> my wifes old toshiba satellite pro 430cdt ( *32MB* ram, 1.2GB hdd ,
> 120MHz pentium) laptop (has floppy and a cdrom attached) ,
> as an economical (in power terms ~= 20w) work station where I can
> code , maybe compile and debug the simpler bits of my project .
> In the heavier coding bits on my normal box , I have 4/5 virtual
> screens with 6 xterms each and one screen for googling ... so
> clearly this laptop wont get anywhere near that , any idea what
> it would support ?
> (currently has win98se installed) .
>
> I have booted with tomsrtbt ok and mounted the cdrom (just to test it).
>
> Anyway I have distros going way back , and the first CD version I have
> is a slackware set from 96 which says requires 4-8MB ram, and 12MB hdd
> and is kernel 2.0 . Clearly in terms of vintage and box spec, this
> matches quite well, but would it be best to use this or a less vintage
> version of slack, (8.0,9.0,10.2 or my latest 11.0) or something else ?
>
> Cheers ,
>
> Steve Houseman
>
> --
>
> currently :
> steve at houseman demon co uk |http://www.houseman.demon.co.uk/

Damn Small Linux claims that it can "Run light enough to power a 486DX
with 16MB of Ram"

<URL:http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/>

It fits into less than 50 Mbytes of disk space as well.

I have used it. It is a little idiosyncratic, but may well suit what
you are after.

Regards,

Sid