Usable and attractive Linux for my wife's slow laptop.

October 27, 2005 4:43 AM

My wife has an old laptop that can just barely handle running Windows XP. I've spent the last year acclimatizing her to Firefox and Open Office, so I believe she would be willing to give Linux a whirl, assuming I could find a distro that was usable, attractive, and faster than XP on her laptop. So what should I try? Specs inside.

It's a Sony PCG-C1VP with a 667 MHz Crusoe. It's pretty much straight factory, with 128MB RAM and a 15GB hard drive. The problem is that any Linux I think of as "usable and attractive" is basically Gnome and cutting edge. Which doesn't mean fast.

My job is Linux and I have a lot of experience, so if the best answer is something that's a handful to install, like, say, Crux, I can do it.

posted by Plutor to Computers & Internet (27 answers total)

Best answer: I'd recommend using Ubuntu (beats any distro I've tried with regard to usability) with XFCE: Xubuntu.
posted by CKZ at 4:59 AM on October 27, 2005

I would also recommend trying Ubuntu first.

That sure is a low RAM number though ... I recently evaluated a few lightweight Linux distributions and was not impressed. Very amateurish.
posted by intermod at 5:03 AM on October 27, 2005

Ubuntu! Try out the live CD to see what it's like. My girlfriend just put it on her laptop and she's loving it.
posted by knave at 5:30 AM on October 27, 2005

Ubuntu. I'd just install it, though. The Live version is much slower.
posted by Jairus at 5:36 AM on October 27, 2005

Ubuntu!
posted by qwip at 5:38 AM on October 27, 2005

Response by poster: Okay, okay, okay, I'll try Ubuntu! (Xfce is a good idea, too. I used it a couple years ago on an old slow machine, and it was attractive and fast.)

Any other suggestions?
posted by Plutor at 5:39 AM on October 27, 2005

For usability I'd recommend either SimplyMEPIS (using KDE) or Ubuntu (using Gnome). However, I think 256 MB is the smallest amount memory I'd try to use with either of those Linux distribution. For old, slow machines with small amounts of memory, I'd probably try either Skolelinux (from the DebianEdu project, one of its goals is to enable the reuse of old equipment) or maybe even Damn Small Linux.
posted by RichardP at 5:46 AM on October 27, 2005

You might try something like gentoo (or some other "power-user" distro) that lets you tweak to your hearts desire. This will let you pare down the distro to exactly what you need, and the ability to set compile options might cut off some fat, too. Gentoo has most any window manager, so you could use xfce or (my fav lightweight wm) fluxbox.
posted by abingham at 5:52 AM on October 27, 2005

Any of the smaller distributions would do the job, but just don't run KDE or Gnome, they'll really chug on older hardware. Ubuntu is good, I've had good experiences with OpenBSD, but might be problematic on non-standard hardware.

I'd probably say use Ubuntu, and a slim WM, like IceWM, which has a quite nice, windows-like interface, or blackbox, which is very small, but takes a little getting used to.
posted by gaby at 6:01 AM on October 27, 2005

Best answer: Ubuntu is good. You might also check out Mandriva, which is also aimed at newbies, and apparently is one of the only distros that 'just works' with most wireless configs. (You can get it working in Ubuntu, but you'll have to tinker.) I've used both, and I'm honestly not sure which I prefer. Mandriva is primarily KDE-based, and Ubuntu is largely GNOME... I'd suggest trying both to see what you think.

If there's any way you can expand the RAM on the laptop to at least 256 megs, you'll get dramatically better performance from most Linux distros. RAM is really cheap, and it's very likely that you could add 256 megs for like $25....assuming that the laptop has a slot. Crucial's site doesn't have anything for it, and I don't see anything on the Sony site, so you may be stuck with 128. :(

If you absolutely can't expand the RAM, you might also look into one of the 'minimalist' distros like Slackware. Lots more work to get those set up, and a lot more manual work to update things, but you can pick and choose what's installed much more precisely. And you may want to avoid Firefox... on Windows, it's a total memory pig, often taking up 50 to 75 megs all by itself.

15 gigs of space should be very comfortable for any Linux distro... even a large install rarely takes more than a couple of gigs.

Remember that the Crusoe will speed up over time as it optimizes itself to your girlfriend's workload. If she doesn't like the speed, be sure to give it a week or so before giving up.
posted by Malor at 6:10 AM on October 27, 2005

Oh, another thought.... you could try installing Windows 2000, and patch the heck out of it. Win2K runs a lot better on lower-memory systems.
posted by Malor at 6:12 AM on October 27, 2005

For customizing, I would also recommend Gentoo or Slackware, but you may find it harder to get things like odd drivers working. I've had such good luck with Ubuntu right out of the box, it should be good for you. Also comes with Gnome by default, so it's less hungry then a distro running KDE, but more user friendly than some of the bare window managers.
posted by qwip at 6:23 AM on October 27, 2005

I'll see your Ubuntu, and raise you a K.
posted by Who_Am_I at 6:26 AM on October 27, 2005

I recommend looking around at DistroWatch. Note that they're not all Linux: some are BSD.

And if anybody's going to run Windows, why not Win98 SE or Windows ME? Win98 would fly along on that laptop.
posted by davy at 6:58 AM on October 27, 2005

That was my first idea as well, try Windows 98SE. Add a bit of 98Lite to it, and it'll work like a charm.

The above named Damn Small Linux works excellently indeed on my antique Toshiba notebook, but has the disadvantage that every upgrade requires a completely new installation.
posted by ijsbrand at 7:14 AM on October 27, 2005

Damn Small Linux is fast/light. but kind of cranky to configure. IMO the best way around the reinstall headache is to set it up to run from RAM disk, and use it's 'package system' (TAR or ZIP, IIRC.) to create a localization file for your specific machine that's installed when it boots. When you want to upgrade, just move the localization package off with your data, install the upgrade, then bring it back.

My biggest problem came from trying to install unsupported hardware - Building a kernel on DSL is nontrivial. Run the thing off CD/USB once to make sure everything detects/works.

DSL uses Fluxbox, a Blackbox descendant - And if you spend a few minutes tweaking it's config file for your wife's expected usage pattern, it's possibly the most efficient WM out there.
posted by Orb2069 at 7:55 AM on October 27, 2005

Add a bit of 98Lite to it, and it'll work like a charm.

Seconded. For basic stuff (web browsing, email, word processing) Win98 SE does it all with minimal overhead. Two drawbacks, however:

1. This isn't a Linux solution.
2. Prepare for system 0wnage. Win98 won't be patched against any new, nasty things coming to an internet near you. A hardware firewall might help (a bit) but I sure as shit wouldn't want to keep any important documents on the system if it's hooked up to the internet for more than a few minutes at a time.

posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:10 AM on October 27, 2005

I'm late, but I'd say Ubuntu as well.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:25 AM on October 27, 2005

Give Puppy a whirl. Comes in under 60MB, with a crapload of apps; built for small machines (runs entirely in RAM if you have 128MB); if you burn the ISO to a multisession CD-R, it automatically writes all your work back to the CD as it shuts down, which is comforting if your laptop is getting a bit old and tired.

Slax is cute too, and is the originator of the UnionFS file system that Puppy uses under the hood.

On preview: C_D, you can make a 98SE box quite adequately networthy as follows:

Install the SoftPerfect Personal Firewall, AVG 7.1 Free antivirus, Spybot Search & Destroy 1.4, Firefox and Thunderbird, and Sun Java.

Apply all critical updates from Windows Update, as well as the following optional updates: Critical Update Notifier, Mapped Drives Shutdown, IDE Cache Package.

Turn off the JIT Compiler option under Internet Options to disconnect the last vestige of Microsoft Java, tweak the Softperfect rules to allow outgoing ICMP but block incoming, turn off Active Desktop, commit to using IE for Windows Update only, and you're golden.
posted by flabdablet at 10:00 AM on October 27, 2005 [1 favorite]

Response by poster: C_D, thanks for the backup for keeping this thread on-topic. I don't have anything against Windows 98SE with 98Lite, or even 2000, really. It's just that I get goosebumps when I think about how great it would be to tell people that I got my non-tech wife using Linux. Even my laptop doesn't run Linux. (That and the laptop doesn't have a CD-ROM. Whatever I install needs to be net-installable.)

Thanks for all the great suggestions, everyone. I think I'll give Ubuntu a try first, but Puppy and Slax seem neat, too. Ubuntu in particular has a lot more "slow/old machine" tips on their Wiki than I was expecting. I want the laptop to be up and usable as quickly as possible, so DSL might not work out. But I'll keep it in mind.
posted by Plutor at 10:29 AM on October 27, 2005

Can the laptop boot from a USB drive? Should be able to run Puppy without any install at all, if so.
posted by flabdablet at 10:41 AM on October 27, 2005

FWIW Slackware 10.2 runs KDE just fine (if slow and at low-res) on my aging Pentium 166. You may have issues with the drivers, sure, but it should run and it looks pretty good.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:00 AM on October 27, 2005

I get goosebumps when I think about how great it would be to tell people that I got my non-tech wife using Linux

Just as a random data point: my girlfriend in college was a 6-foot tall blond Danish chick with Linux on her Thinkpad... and this was in '96. So I know where you're coming from.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:13 AM on October 27, 2005

As much as I love BSD, OpenBSD isn't good for a desktop unless you want to cut through a lot of red tape and deal with build inconsistencies. Its definitely a set-up-and-let-be OS (but very nice for that).

Never tried Ubuntu, but heard great things... one thing I'll add is I'd consider WindowMaker as a window manager too. Its even ligher than Xfce, and if you can get used to it, pretty powerful. FVWM is also a possibility, but it really relies on scripts for configuration. I'd personally run blackbox/fluxbox on a machine like that, but most people can't get used to those.
posted by devilsbrigade at 7:02 PM on October 27, 2005

Is she going to use this laptop as her main computer?

If it can boot from a USB device like a pen drive I recommend Feather Linux. I've used a LiveCD of that on my backup machine, an old P-233 with 64 MB of RAM, and it runs just fine on it; it should be mighty on the laptop described. It doesn't say anything about installing it on the hard drive though.

Damn Small can install on a hard drive, and/or it boots (to quote) "from within a host operating system (that's right, it can run *inside* Windows)". But that looks a bit complicated for a non-techie new to Linux, and it still needs a USB port. As you said Plutor, it might not work out.

If you do go with Ubuntu please let us know how it turns out. I'm a bit put off by its "hipsterish" home page , but then I'm weird that way.

If it were my SO's laptop and she wanted to install Linux on the hard drive I'd repartition the disk (I used to use FIPS when I had only one HD) and set up a boot menu (I use GRUB, she prefers LILO). Not that I think Plutor needs to be told that, but...

And devilsbrigade, what about FreeBSD or the other *BSDs?
posted by davy at 7:27 PM on October 27, 2005

FreeBSD is the most linux-like. A lot of its utilities are slowly migrating towards SysV. It actually has driver support. Its probably the best out of the 3 for desktops/laptops.

I personally like NetBSD because of its simplicity, but for driver issues/some hw support/some kernel features, its lagging behind.
posted by devilsbrigade at 1:21 AM on October 28, 2005

If you're going to use a modern GNOME or KDE linux environment you're going to have to put more than 128MB in there, unless you want things sluggish. So that means if you want fast, you'll either be sticking to an "alternative" window manager (like fvwm or xfce or whatever) or you'll be using win98. However the non-GNOME/KDE distros usually have a lot less polish, and so if you're going for "attractive", definitely go on ebay and max out the ram that you can install, it should be pretty cheap to get it up to 256 or 512.
posted by Rhomboid at 9:28 AM on October 28, 2005