Linux recomendations:

[Bikerdude]

Evening

 

As some of you may know I am a computer dude, and I have dabbled in linux from time to time. But today will be the first time I am building a laptop for a lifelong windows user who is 70yrs old to linux, so....

 

What I want from you lot is recommendations for the linux distro that will approximate windows in use and form. The pc it will be going on is an old clunky Sony Vaio(1.2Ghz P3, 515Mb ram, 40GB HDD, ATi Rage) - WinXp runs just fine for my users, but I had an epiphany (curtsey of a best mate) that i could convert this user to Linux

 

My prefered distro has always been Suse.

[Aprilsister]

If you have only dabbled in linux, why?

 

Why would you want to put a 70 year old lifelong Windows user into linux?

 

My recommendation is that you don't.

[rich_is_bored]

I'm Linux-illiterate but I installed it on an old Sony laptop for my mother a few years ago. All she does is check email and browse the web so I figured Linux could get the job done and I'd save a hundred bucks.

 

I settled with Ubuntu because it was the only distribution I tried where the network card worked without fiddling around with stuff I don't understand.

[fibanocci]

I recommend Linux Mint. It looks nicely, it's very easy to handle.

 

http://www.linuxmint.com/

Edited February 20, 2011 by fibanocci

[ocn]

I agree with rich_is_bored. Ubuntu might be the way to go. No issues whatsoever in my experience.

EDIT: Unless you want a dual boot setup.

Edited February 20, 2011 by ocn

[snobel]

I recommend Linux Mint. It looks nicely, it's very easy to handle.

 

http://www.linuxmint.com/

Seconded. In this case, since the hardware is old, maybe the LXDE version of Mint is the best option?

[Serpentine]

I'd most likely go with something a bit more modular and package focused like Arch, since your client might not agree exactly with your initial selection of apps/DE etc.

[Baal]

I installed the debian edition of linux mint on my sisters netbook. That's a rolling release distro based on debian testing instead of ubuntu like the other mint editions.

So far it works fine and my sister likes it.

It comes with gnome and I don't know how well that runs on older machines but you can boot it from stick or cd/dvd in case you want to test it.

[Bikerdude]

• If you have only dabbled in linux, why?
  
• Why would you want to put a 70 year old lifelong Windows user into linux?

1. We are all going to have to learn linux sooner or later and I will jump ship when all my windows games will player under linux.

2. As a computer engineer there are more and more jobs requiring linux, so I need to learn.

3. Because I think Linux is mature & user friendly enough that even a 70yr old windoz user should be able to use it.

[snobel]

3. Because I think Linux is mature & user friendly enough that even a 70yr old windoz user should be able to use it.

Definitely. My mother's 71 and somewhat technophobic, and she's been a happy Ubuntu user for about a year and a half. It hasn't been flawless, but there has definitely been less maintenance on my part, than when she was on XP.

Back then I installed Ubuntu, but changed the panel layout to mimick XP. Today I'd have chosen Mint instead...

[lost_soul]

Ubuntu is great for people who just want a system that works in under 15 minutes (usually). Yep, it really installs that fast. 512 megs of RAM is scraping the bottom of the barrel though for Ubuntu. That is Ubuntu's minimum requirement. If you use something other than Gnome though, 512 megs would be enough. My current Arch system is using 330 megs of RAM out of the 8 gigs and I've got Firefox, Pidgin, Compiz, gnome and custom kernel modules like Virtualbox going. This is without a page file/swap partition.

 

Arch Linux is harder to use because it gives you only what you want and nothing more. This means it is less bloated and faster on older hardware. I've never used Mint, but it is based on Ubuntu, so it should be good.

 

Some reasons to install Linux for an older friend are:

1. It stays the way you leave it. There won't be toolbars or tuns of crap automatically loading at system startup next time you visit the friend. Most people pay no attention when they install software and end up with lots of unnecessary services running at boot.

 

2. No security software needed. At my mom's, there sits an old P4 with a gig of RAM. When we installed Norton, it crippled the system's performance. The hard drive is now always doing something, and when I visit I can't even enjoy a game of Urban Terror without terminating the AV. There won't be a speed hit like this in Linux.

Edited February 20, 2011 by lost_soul

[Aprilsister]

A bunch of bad-moodisms

 

Ahhhh... fuck it I'm just being a miserable fuck.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Aprilsister

[lost_soul]

Just yesterday we put together a quad-core AMD system for somebody. We didn't have the intended hard drive (500 GB) at the moment to complete the build, so we put in an old 80 GB drive with 600+ bad sectors just to TEST the system. I then booted an Ubuntu 10.4 CD and everything just worked. 3D acceleration was there, networking was there, sound was there, and the resolution was set to the appropriate 1440x900. I'm not one of those who go around trying to convert everyone to Linux, but I do have to admit: that was pretty freaking amazing. I was playing a Tetris clone and browsing the web while the system installed onto this dying hard drive.

 

Part of the reason for installing that bad hard drive was that I wanted to use Ubuntu's disk utility to see what exactly was wrong with it. The only thing the BIOS would say was that the disk was failing. Then I ran the self-test and found the massive amount of bad sectors.

Edited April 27, 2011 by lost_soul

[Baddcog]

I've tried Kbuntu (somewhere around vr 8) and Mint (9) and I gotta say I really liked Mint the best.

 

With Kbunut I was having issues getting some sound drivers to work. Harder to find stuff I needed, etc...

 

Mint had a DL manager that found everything really easy and everything worked great. I just didn't have much luck getting dual boot to work like i wanted and there are games/programs that I HAVE to have Windows for.

 

Not sure which vr of Mint I had. I believe it was Fluxbox KDE. (It had Konqueror)

 

I really wish they'd get Steam support, that would probably win me over. (Steam now has Mac support but for some reason...)

[Serpentine]

If you're testing hardware you should take a look at : Inquisitor (wikipedia). I've been using it lately for having a look at 'huhhhh' type problems, interface isnt lovely or anything but it does a pretty good job of dealing with running minimally to avoid possible problems.

[Baal]

Not sure which vr of Mint I had. I believe it was Debian. Seemed like the best choice for Linux n00bs.

The Mints with version numbers are based on Ubuntu and should be very similar (I never tried any of them or Ubuntu).

The Debian edition doesn't have a fixed version (rolling release) and is based on the debian Testing repository. It's in development and might have some issues but I like it.

[Baddcog]

Yeah, I editted that after I went and looked at the Mint site 'cause I wasn't sure.

 

I'm pretty sure it was Fluxbox KDE now. (Saw a list of browser/music programs that come stock with it)

[OrbWeaver]

I'm pretty sure it was Fluxbox KDE now. (Saw a list of browser/music programs that come stock with it)

 

Fluxbox and KDE are separate projects: Fluxbox is a window manager, while KDE is a complete desktop environment which provides applications and its own window manager. It is however possible to use the KDE applications with the Fluxbox window manager, which could have been what your distribution was doing.

[Serpentine]

@Spring/greebo : huso410841 could do with a ban + post removal. Off topic so you can also remove this post