linux os

[chas2008]

i have a laptop which is really just a back up its quite a low spec and is really not worth spending money upgrading.Unfortunately there are no backup/restore discs, its on window 2000pro and recently it has developed some issues that indicate it could do with windows being reloaded. Obviously im not going to spend �60.00+ on windows disks so i started looking at LInux, seemed the answer to everything until it appears to require 3gb of harddrive!!!..and ive only got 2.5gb left (i said it was low spec)..why does Linux require so much ??...or are there other versions ?

[Ethel]

You can install a teeny tiny linux;

http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

You could order Ubuntu on 'free' cd (very low costs to cover p&p) , remove your Windows and install Ubuntu.

I'm sure others will have ideas too.

You can also boot from a Ubuntu cd.

[rojash]

Well, according to the Ubuntu site, it requires 4GB to install. But when you say you have only 2.5GB "left" that's presumably after taking into account your existing Windows and other software. If you are considering replacing Windows with Linux, then the only stuff you need to retain is your data - none of your existing software will work under Linux.

[chas2008]

yes, 2.5gb available...to be honest theres not much on it, MSword etc + windows 2000 thats about it..the HD is only 4gb...All i want it for is a backup to connect to the web, you say the soft ware wont work under Linux, does that include my softtouch modem?..or do i just have to reinstall the drivers?...i have spent hours over the weekend checking the various web sites out but i think i confused myself with to much info...

[Ethel]

I don't know if this is much help to you, but out of curiosity I created a bootable ubuntu disk, which means I can run Ubuntu without installing it on the hard drive.

I was curious as to whether or not I would like it. I do. :)

But you could do the same as a test run.

[fo3nix]

How much RAM does it have?

A 4GB hard drive sounds incredibly small for a Win2k laptop -- are you sure?

DSL, as Ethel links to above, is good for very basic systems.

If you have about 256MB RAM and enough hard drive space (4GB really??), then give Xubuntu a go.

Ubuntu 8.04 requires about 384MB RAM to install.

Regarding software, drivers etc.: drivers and software are made for the OS. Since you'll no longer be using Windows, all the rest goes too. There's often comparative software available, but not always. You may have issues with modems.

[chas2008]

Cheers FO3NIX,
yep, 100 % certain...it really is a low spec system, cant remember how much RAM but nothing to exciting..just seems a waste to launch it for the sake of an operating system..i do have a VISTA disc but it would probably comit suicide if i tried to load that on it..your comment on the modem , which is what i wasnt really sure about , has made me think twice..

[rojash]

This kind of ambiguous quote if rom the Ubuntu site: "At least 256 MB of RAM is required to run the alternate install CD (384MB of RAM is required to use the live CD based installer). Install requires at least 4 GB of disk space."
If your machine's is useless anyway, I would definitely give it a go.

I have 3 machines - XP, Vista, and Ubuntu. Ubuntu is definitely my favourite. In terms of machine spec, (low to high) they are Ubuntu, XP, Vista, whilst in terms of subjective performance (low to high) they are Vista, Ubuntu, XP.

[fo3nix]

GNU/Linux is really the only way to go.

But I'd certainly try Xubuntu over Ubuntu. (Xubuntu is almost the same thing, just uses a lighter window system that works better for older systems.)

Get the alternate installer too.

If that doesn't work, give puppy linux a go:
http://www.puppylinux.org/

If that doesn't work (and it really should!), then give DSL (above) a go. But this is really, really cut down.

You couldn't really use DSL as a regular operating system. Puppy linux, probably. But Xubuntu is definitely the most comfortable, especially for someone not that used to GNU/Linux systems.