Posted by matthewb on February 21, 2009, 2:52 pm
Why reuse an old computer?
Cheaper than buying a new computer.
Allows a computer to have a new second life.
Less e waste being created.
If your old PC has full or a broken hard drive.
Create a portable Linux installation with your own documents on a USB
memory stick.
Potentially retrieve files from a computer with a broken operating
system.
The power consumption may be lower than the modern trend of 500 Watt
power supplies in a PC.
I have created a How To page.
http://www.matthewb.id.au/computer/Reuse_Old_Computer_with_Linux.html
What do you think?
Posted by meow2222 on February 23, 2009, 8:13 pm
matthewb wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:16 am, albun...@mailinator.com wrote:
> The goal of the document was to try Linux on a older computer to see
> if can have a second life.
> I assume most old computers are operational but not quick enough to
> run Windows any more.
I've heard that many times, but it makes no sense to me at all. All
computers are exactly as fast as they were on day 1, unless they've
been upgraded or clocked. And win95, 98 etc havent changed any
either... so its inevitable that a fresh reinstall will run the same
speed it did originally.
As for security patches, you wouldnt use an old machine for sensitive
apps, so patching is optional. If you pick app software with care you
can get a system running far faster than it ever used to.
> The process shows a non destructive way to try Linux on systems with
> low hardware specifications.
> If you are happy with Linux then keep running it off the Live CD or
> Boot USB or install in on your hard drive.
> The alternative is change an old computer to work with Windows + Anti
> Virus suite + 100s of Windows security updates often means new
> motherboard, processor, RAM & perhaps hard drive, power supply and
> graphics card.
nonsense. Even my 486 still runs all that passably. Its just a matter
of setting up the software well
- AV on old machines, set real time scanning OFF, just rely on the
night time scan.
- pick apps with care, avoiding any bloat
- make sure no app starts at boot time unless it genuinely needs to.
Do that and you can get almost anything online, and at usable speed
too. Even a 486. Not that anyone would want to these days.
NT
Posted by Gary Heston on February 25, 2009, 10:27 pm
>matthewb wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 10:16 am, albun...@mailinator.com wrote:
>> The goal of the document was to try Linux on a older computer to see
>> if can have a second life.
>> I assume most old computers are operational but not quick enough to
>> run Windows any more.
>I've heard that many times, but it makes no sense to me at all. All
>computers are exactly as fast as they were on day 1, unless they've
>been upgraded or clocked. And win95, 98 etc havent changed any
>either... so its inevitable that a fresh reinstall will run the same
>speed it did originally.
I suspect the OP was referring to newer versions of Windows, like XP.
It's not exactly slim and trim compared to Win9x, whereas some distros
of Linux would be.
>As for security patches, you wouldnt use an old machine for sensitive
>apps, so patching is optional. If you pick app software with care you
>can get a system running far faster than it ever used to.
I.e., don't use Microsoft apps. Open Office is cleaner, and available
in Windows-compatible versions as well.
>> The process shows a non destructive way to try Linux on systems with
>> low hardware specifications.
>> If you are happy with Linux then keep running it off the Live CD or
>> Boot USB or install in on your hard drive.
>> The alternative is change an old computer to work with Windows + Anti
>> Virus suite + 100s of Windows security updates often means new
>> motherboard, processor, RAM & perhaps hard drive, power supply and
>> graphics card.
>nonsense. Even my 486 still runs all that passably. Its just a matter
>of setting up the software well
[ ... ]
Use of "setting up the software well" and Windows in the same sentence
is an oxymoron.
>Do that and you can get almost anything online, and at usable speed
>too. Even a 486. Not that anyone would want to these days.
I supplied someone with a 486DX2/66 system a few years ago; they had a
customer whose 75MHz Pentium server had died (motherboard failure) and
needed a replacement with sufficient ISA slots. They were still using
a 75-ohm coax network that was obselete before 1990 (and whose name
escapes me ATM) and had to have lots of slots for their 8-bit NICs.
The customer was told that rewriting their software to run on modern
hardware was an imperitive. Not sure if they ever did.
>NT
That's a fairly trim OS, even with SP6a installed. I had it running on
some small (<3GB) hard drives in some of my Seti@home crunchers, back
when I was involved with S@h Classic.
That older hardware has other uses with Linux; it'll make a fine firewall
or file/print server for a home network.
Gary
--
Gary Heston gheston@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"Behind every successful woman there is an astonished man"
General of the Army (four stars) Ann Dunwoody
Posted by OhioGuy on March 3, 2009, 2:56 pm
> can't imagine who the average computer user who is mostly ignorant of
> computers could be comfortable with a Linux-based computer at home.
You must not have tried Linux Mint yet. It will play pretty much any
video or sound file right out of the box. That's what I use Windows for
95% of the time anyway.
> The goal of the document was to try Linux on a older computer to see
> if can have a second life.
> I assume most old computers are operational but not quick enough to
> run Windows any more.