Comments on: Not particularly worried

By: Three recent thoughts « Motho ke motho ka botho

Three recent thoughts « Motho ke motho ka botho — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 03:53:42 +0000

[...] go through the effort of jury-rigging a machine that will boot the Ubuntu 10.10 alternative disc. Rumor had it that Maverick would be i686-only, and yet the ISOs are all labeled i386. Maybe that’s just [...]

By: James

James — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 07:28:04 +0000

Indeed? I have a similar setup and the thing flies. Some of the fastest boot times I’ve ever gotten from a graphical Linux distro. Might even be under a minute.

Ubuntu has never upgraded between major versions well; I don’t even bother trying any more. The last time I did, I got something like what you’re describing. You might try starting from a clean install and using ext4 before looking elsewhere.

By: The myth of Arch Linux and the i586 « Motho ke motho ka botho

The myth of Arch Linux and the i586 « Motho ke motho ka botho — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:54:22 +0000

[...] long. And whether or not the same stunt is possible with Ubuntu after Meerkat remains to be seen. But probably not by me. The idea is so unattractive as to be [...]

By: mulenmar

mulenmar — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:33:48 +0000

Try a clean install, use ext4, and edit the /etc/fstab options to use ‘noatime’. I run Ubuntu 10.04 very happily on a NETBOOK with the Poulsbo chipset, for heaven’s sake.

By: mulenmar))

mulenmar)) — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:31:22 +0000

Yeah, but Arch has an unofficial i586 version, too.

By: poss

poss — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:31:13 +0000

yeah i noticed a difference between ubuntu 8.10 command line install with lxde & gdm and Lubuntu 10.04 onto a mmx 233mhz the 8.10 was less problematic on that particular machine. but really how many folk compute with an mmx anyway. same with powerpc, the architecture is pretty well dead so its no biggy development is dropping off.

By: Gullars

Gullars — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:51:35 +0000

Wow, that means my machine has no chance of running it, even though I’ve always thought of it as more than beefy enough, I have a weak core duo with 1GB ram, and I seldom use more than 2% of the cpu’s and maybe half of the memory, both with arch and puppy, I have a more flashy crunchbang running too with compiz standalone, but that too seldom goes over 700 Mb of ram usage.

By: DePingus

DePingus — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:26:28 +0000

I upgraded Ubuntu 9 to 10 on a Intel Core 2 Duo 7300 2.0 with 2GB RAM. Needless to say, I’m not a happy camper. This thing chokes! Now I’m looking for alternatives for a full blown desktop (other than Ubuntu 9)…

By: Nugnuts

Nugnuts — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:03:36 +0000

This particular discussion seems to be approaching the issue from the wrong direction, in my opinion. I don’t see much use in rationalizing the decision from the perspective of users, instead preferring to look at it from the perspective of the developers (who of course consider the users). It’s not about saying Ubuntu is unsuited for old hardware; it’s about the fact that old hardware is old, and growing less and less prevalent. One has to do a cost/benefit analysis to determine if it makes sense to support the older hardware. Indeed, it wasn’t worth supporting other hardware to Judd when he started Arch.

By: Gullars

Gullars — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:32:18 +0000

Yeah, that is more or less what kmandla said too, right