Want to dual-boot Linux on this junk computer


Recommended Posts

Currently my junk computer has 64 MB of RAM and a Pentium II processor. It runs Windows 98. From what I can tell I got it somewhere in the window of 1998, so it's an old piece of junk.

I want to dual-boot Linux on it, but I want to get the opinions of the better computer techs here what distribution I should get or if it matters at all. Also, if possible, I'd like to know if the computer *could* run Linux without slowing down or lagging too much.

Thanks in advance.

~Jeffrey~

PS: I'm completely new to Linux

Well I'm interested in Debian at this point; but I'm not entirely sure was distribution I'm getting, the 'netinst' images, or the 'businesscard' images? And there are choices to download, like alpha, arm, hppa, etc... I don't know what to get.

~Jeffrey~

Netinstall has the very basics, then downloads the packages you tell it to off the net at time of install (I believe).

The alpha, arm, sparc, PPC, etc. are CPU archetecture types supported. You want i586 (or i486 or i386) for the Intel Pentium (or 80486 or 80386) CPU.

Debian should work fine for you.

the difference between the business card CD and the netinst CD is how much is downloaded before install or after.

With the netinst image, you get enough to actually set up a working system, but very minimal. with the business card image you need to download from the internet during the install.

Linux will run fine on that machine; i run it on a pentium 1, 133mhz, 32mb ram, and it works okay. You should be fine with a lightwieght window manager like fluxbox, but if you're used to a more full environment xfce might be a good choice for you.

  • 2 weeks later...
  cropcircles said:

SuSe 10 sets up a dual boot automatically and has a nice boot screen. You just run the default set up menu and your good to go.

are you mad?!?!? :D - i wouldnt run suse 10 on anything with less that 512MB of ram - if you want suse, use 9.3 - i tried suse 10 on my second pc (RIG2 in my sig), and it was appauling - but suse 9.1 works like a dream on it.

BTW, apart from the ram and HDD, everything else in that pc is original components, and it has a "built for windows 95" sticker on it :D

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • If you look at all RAID implementations that exist, you're going to find exceptions. However, all the modern consumer varieties tend to have some things in common (by default). I'll stick to describing those. When you add a disk to a RAID array, metadata is stored at the end of the disk. It records the array the disk is part of, which other disks are in the array, etc. This is called the RAID superblock. If you create a RAID 1 array, your operating system will see them all as a single disk that is very slightly smaller than a single disk (due to the superblock). Everything you write to the RAID disk gets written identically to each of its member disks by the storage controller. Technically, disks are read/written in blocks (each block is multiple sectors in size), but this is all transparent to the user. Every file you create or change or delete is created/changed/deleted on every member disk simultaneously. This is true whether you have 2 disks in the array or more than 2.  If one disk completely fails, you can still operate just fine off the remaining disk(s) (but see the caution below). If you remove one disk and attach it to another PC, it should work fine. The partition information and everything is all at the front of the disk, just as expected. The superblock will just appear as some extra junk at the very end of the disk, outside any partition. In some scenarios, where it is recognized as a RAID member disk from another PC, there might be an extra step before it will let you use it, but it's all very doable. Caution:  Blocks are read from the disks in a staggered fashion. For example, with 2 disks, all the odd blocks are read from one disk and all the even blocks are read from the other. By working together like this, read speeds can be practically doubled. But this comes with a huge drawback. If a disk doesn't fail completely, but instead develops bad sectors, you may not realize it. The bad sectors may happen to be in blocks that are never read on that disk. In some cases, people have had bad sectors develop on one disk, then had the other disk fail, and only then realized that the remaining disk has bad sectors and corrupt data. Every backup method has its pros and cons. Never trust just RAID, or just an external HDD, or just the cloud. Use multiple methods to backup important data.
    • Evidence that it affects "most" people negatively? Based on what? The fact that their are millions of users in fact show me the opposite, that "most" are quite happy.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Kavin25 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      Leonard grant earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      pcdoctorsnet earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rising Star
      Phillip0web went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • One Month Later
      Epaminombas earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      537
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      205
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      167
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      151
    5. 5
      Som
      127
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!