Linux on a Budget Computer

My friend and I are building a very low spec computer. This means there will likely be a cheap Celeron or Sempron processor, 512MB of slow RAM, an IDE hard drive and an optical both connected to one IDE100 port, and more weak components. To ensure that the price was kept low, and we had an OS that didn't need a lot of power, we decided we were going to install a Linux OS. We are currently set on Ubuntu, but aren't sure if it's the best choice. Would another version be more suitable to us?

Also, we intend on installing by loading it on to a USB flash drive and putting it on the computer. Is this the best way?

Thanks in advance!

 

First off, please provide more detailed information on the components(ex: manufacturer, chipset etc) This is necessary many times to determine if Linux will be easy to setup on the machine. Depending on how low powered the machine is, you might have trouble with Ubuntu/Kubuntu because they use fairly powerful graphical environments. If you want a Ubuntu variant with lower system requirements but still has a good graphical interface check out Xbuntu, it uses XFCE. Not to mention that there are a lot of Ubuntu variants to choose from like Linux Mint etc.

 

I say give Xubuntu a shot. Thunar file manager is jawesome XD

 

Any modern CPU should be able to run Ubuntu (or Kubuntu) with ease. 512MB of RAM really is quite a bit when talking Linux. But since you'll have an optical drive, all you are wasting is a bit of time and some blank CD's if you download a few LiveCD's and test them out. Ubuntu has one of the best (and largest) communities for support, so I'd suggest them just because you'll probably more easily get help when you need it.

 

Ubuntu works well on my old beat up eMachines T2984 w/Celeron 2.93 GB, 512 mb RAM and WD800 hdd.
Sounds about like what you're building, but probably uglier! LOL

Don't know about the flash drive; a Live CD worked fine for me.

 

Optical drives are dime a dozen these days. Scrounge one out of a broken PC if you have to.
+1 on the Xubuntu suggestion. Gnome and KDE desktops like lots of RAM just like that other OS. Well, not JUST like it if you know what I mean. Ubuntu 7.10 on my Acer 5920 idles at about 200MB RAM. vista idles at about 800MB RAM.

I've experimented with several old desktops (Pentium III's) and about 512 RAM. Xubuntu is much snappier than Gnome or KDE.

 

Same with RAM. For the CPU, an Athlon X2 3800+ shouldn't be more expensive than a Sempron ($65)

 

So you guys think Xubuntu would be more suited to me than Ubuntu because it requires a less powerful system?

 

I would like to add that Ubuntu and linux in general deserves to be on a beautiful machine also lol

 

thanks for that...

 

On a low spec machine Xubunt will give you a better experience than Ubuntu, yes. But, I would like to recommend that you also give SAM Linux a try.

http://sam.hipsurfer.com/news.php?readmore=13

Like Xubuntu, SAM uses XFCE as the desktop environment. However, it is built on top of a PCLinuxOS foundation and it keeps the excellent PCLinuxOS Control Center. What that means is that it is a very robust distribution in terms of stability and features. I used it to build a low spec machine for a friend of mine and I was very impressed. It is a LiveCD distro. So you can try it without having to install it first. See what you think and let us know.

 

JBytes -
The kernel behind Xubuntu is the same as Ubuntu and Kubuntu. The difference is the user interface or desktop environment or whatever you want to call it. In other words, what you see when when the OS is finished loading.
Gnome and KDE both provide more convenience to the user. But there's a cost to convenience; more processes scurrying around in the background.

So Xubuntu takes a little bit of getting used to because it offers fewer conveniences. I pulled my hair out trying to make some launchers for Firefox, OpenOffice, GIMP, etc. in the panel, but once I stumbled across the steps realized it was pretty easy.

Now where are those steps anyways?

On my old Pentium III desktops, I could open a terminal and type in "top". top is a neat little utility that measures CPU and RAM usage. With Kubuntu and Ubuntu, CPU usage at an idle was running between 4% and 7%. With Xubuntu, it was 1%. Xubuntu just uses less system resources. The faster the processor and the more RAM, the less difference you'll see. So with a modern PC and lots of RAM it would be reasonable to just go with Kub or Ub and enjoy the convenience of a full-featured desktop environment. With older hardware/less RAM it's a very reasonable decision to go with a "lighter" desktop environment and spend a little bit of time learning how to use it.