Forum Rules - Formats - Spotlights  -  Home - Library - New Additions

Install ubuntu-6.10

AnonymousAnonymous
edited March 2007 in Software
System Specs
Dell Dimension V350
Intel PII 350 Mhz
96 MB Ram
10 GB Harddrive
CD-Rom
I downloaded ubuntu-6.10. How do i install it? I burned all the files to a cd useing nero. I burned it as data CD. I had winrar thats how i extracted the files to another folder. Now i got iso buster. Im new to Linux and want to try it how do i install anything else i need? I downloaded the one that was for less than 192 MB.

Comments

  • BODBOD
    You'll be waiting a loooooooooooong time for it to install.
  • QQ
    If you extracted the files to a folder and wrote THAT to a CD, it wont boot. You have to use Nero to burn the ISO as a "disc image". If you extract and burn, the CD wont have any boot sector and will NOT load or install.

    -Q
  • AnonymousAnonymous
    BOD wrote:
    You'll be waiting a loooooooooooong time for it to install.
    Well it can be installing tomorrow while im at work for 8 hours im gone about 10 hours.
  • BashBash
    Woah, *Ubuntu* on 96MB of RAM? I hate to say it, but you are better off getting Xubuntu which is designed for a bit slower system. No difference, but minor cosmetic changes (which are the only apparent change mainly)
  • FedeArgFedeArg
    Ubuntu is the coolest and user-friendly linux bulids ever since I first-runned this exellent linux I have noticed that it`s will the linux for me!!!! (To consider I hate linux) :P

    It`s Orange and Vista Aero style cursor Rocks.. I RECOMMEND IT TO EVERYONE THAT IS STARTING WITH LINUX WORLD.... :) for that reason ubuntu is the most used in the world (according to an linux website)

    P.S: it no have crap apps In comparison of other linux distros, it have only the nessesary to run :)
  • Ka0sKa0s
    Except that it will crush the system that he wants to install it on. 96MB = not enough. I think even 2000 is pushing it on that thing.
  • BashBash
    It wouldn't crush it if he uses the console, lol.

    Setting Gnome up on that though is death to your computer. Unless its some older version of Gnome.
  • QQ
    Both GNOME and KDE (The later versions I tried) where incredibly bloated and more superficial then "LUNA", but this was several years ago.

    -Q
  • 512dev512dev
    Xfce is good on low-RAM systems. I've run it in 64MB no problem.

    -512
  • FedeArgFedeArg
    ka0s wrote:
    Except that it will crush the system that he wants to install it on. 96MB = not enough. I think even 2000 is pushing it on that thing.
    it`s true, win 2000 is the best option for him... :)
  • BashBash
    FedeVista wrote:
    ka0s wrote:
    Except that it will crush the system that he wants to install it on. 96MB = not enough. I think even 2000 is pushing it on that thing.
    it`s true, win 2000 is the best option for him... :)

    It... depends. If he wants to futz around in Linux and see what Ubuntu is like, Windows 2000 wouldn't be best for him.
  • BODBOD
    The newer versions of KDE are actually not that bloated, they're tidying stuff up a *lot*.
  • ThumpThump
    512dev wrote:
    Xfce is good on low-RAM systems. I've run it in 64MB no problem.

    -512
    I agree with 512dev I guess but I haven't installed any flavour of
    Linux in a couple of years. I use the live CDs instead.

    Its an old pc, so I dont recommend anything too fancy, maybe
    xbuntu which is ubuntu running the xfce interface...or is it
    xfe...whatever, its designed for older hardware.

    Thump
  • BODBOD
    Xorg is still going to run like horribly on that machine.
  • ThumpThump
    BOD wrote:
    Xorg is still going to run like horribly on that machine.
    There's nothing we can do about the machine though and that's
    pretty close to what he was wanting to do.
    He's probably messed up the CD so it won't boot so all he'd have
    to do is one more download and try to get a proper burn..

    Good luck XpUser.

    Thump
  • 512dev512dev
    I've run X and xfce fine in 64MB. Get Xubuntu on that machine.

    -512
  • QQ
    BOD wrote:
    The newer versions of KDE are actually not that bloated, they're tidying stuff up a *lot*.

    WoW, that actually makes me want to install VMware and see. Do you have any details?

    -Q
  • BODBOD
    I can't remember the exact details, but when I've been using the later versions of KDe they definately feel faster.

    there's been numerous slashdot posts about KDE 4 cleaning out the bloat from the menus also.
  • QQ
    That's good. I do remember that the whole thing did exude suggestions of, well, bloatedness (This on 3.x).

    -Q
  • BODBOD
    Their lists of useless programmes were just annoying

    Tea timer comes to mind.
  • QQ
    HeHe, to me "TeaTimer" is the resident settings protector for Spybot.

    I don't mind "useless programs" if you can uninstall/remove them or ignore them. The huge things that were part of the system and ALWAYS running or were integral to the operation of the whole and were themselves sluggishly (and seemingly) bloated were what got me (On a ~PII).

    -Q
Sign In or Register to comment.