This might sound obvious to most of us, but if you do check out a Live CD (e.g. Ubuntu), keep in mind that it is running from the CD, so load times are S-L-O-W.
Once installed, however, Ubuntu loads and runs very quickly...and that's on a Pentium M 1.1GHz machine.
Bewildered by choice on Distrowatch, no kidding! Let's say I decide on Linux Mint based on some of the recommendations here. Then I look at this list of downloads. I figure that 4.0 is the latest while at the same time it's been around a while, so it sounds good. Then I have to decide which of the "editions" I want. I see that some are KDE, which is enticing since I see threads about KDE on the N800 desktop. But the Gnome Main seems maybe best developed? Any suggestions?
Additionally, I would like to run Linux on my Thinkpad X22 (800 MHz, which indicates its vintage). It's maybe tricky for hardware recognition since it's a subcompact in which the CD drive is not integrated, rather it's in a dock. I've come across an old post with someone talking about running an old Red Hat distribution on his X22, so I was tempted to copy what he had done. But that's way old stuff and I understand Linux usability has come a long way since then. Should I anticipate problems arising from using a newer Linux distribution on my old-ish and subcompact+dock hardware? All the distros equivalent at handling those types of issues? Thanks.
The Mint folks seem to have veered away from Gnome and toward KDE, so I'd go with their latest and greatest.
I am partial to Puppy Linux for old computers. I would just try the current non-beta release, which is 3.01. However, there are substantial nests of old users who swear by older versions and keep updating them.
If you read the Distrowatch descriptions of distros you will see that quite a few specify that they are made with older computers in mind, so I think a good solution is waiting for you and your Thinkpad. The trick is in finding it.
Additionally, I would like to run Linux on my Thinkpad X22 (800 MHz, which indicates its vintage). It's maybe tricky for hardware recognition since it's a subcompact in which the CD drive is not integrated, rather it's in a dock. I've come across an old post with someone talking about running an old Red Hat distribution on his X22, so I was tempted to copy what he had done. But that's way old stuff and I understand Linux usability has come a long way since then. Should I anticipate problems arising from using a newer Linux distribution on my old-ish and subcompact+dock hardware? All the distros equivalent at handling those types of issues? Thanks.
In general, hardware support will be better the older your machine is, as there has been enough time to get everything working on the driver level.
That being said, the laptop (ca. 2001, I'd guess) is probably too old to have ACPI, so don't be too surprised if there's some problems with power management (esp. hibernation).
There's really no point in using an older distribution just because the machine is older. Most software on Linux actually becomes more efficient over the years. Also for every 'rich' application there is always a lightweight alternative.
If you're still interested in Ubuntu after the livecd; and you want to keep your windows partition "clean" and don't fancy messing about with resizing partitions and the like, check out Wubi here: http://wubi-installer.org/
It's a "Windows Installer" for Ubuntu 8.04 that sets up Ubuntu inside a large file on your Windows partition which is bootable from the Windows boot menu. Works wonderfully well, safe as a very safe thing, etc
Tried to download this and the install stopped at 135mb of 600+.....took all night.
do you know of a good download site where it wont take 24hrs to download?
My Daughters' laptop is a Thinkpad X20 PIII 600mhz, W/380 meg ram running Linux Mint quite well, she has been using it this way for 2 years now, so your X22 is more than enough to run it.
"Xfce is a lightweight desktop environment for various *NIX systems. Designed for productivity, it loads and executes applications fast, while conserving system resources." - Olivier Fourdan, creator of Xfce.
I guess you better give the creator a call.
This sentence is years old. Please give your console a chance and type top, if you have an equivalent(*) desktop running with Gnome, KDE and Xfce.
(*) for example: don't activate a Network Manager in Gnome if you haven't it running in Xfce or activate all panel applets in KDE if you haven't running any applets in Gnome or Xfce and vice versa.
Xfce feels a bit faster if you open for example Thunar with few files in a directory. If you have a lot of files in a directory, Thunar cache as fast as Nautilus as Konqueror: every file manager feels and caches slow 1st time with an usual PC (~1ghz+, ~256mb+, ~80gb+), even Rox-Filer with Fluxbox
And please don't tell me you use Dillo instead of Firefox to save memory because you use Xfce...
