Wich version do you recommend for this PC?

[SS4]

Ok i just set up an Old Pentium III 548 mhz with 192 mb of ram that was in my old stuff.

The computer works fine. It had more ram but one of the stick was busted so i had to take it out and I'm down to 192 :/

Now it run surprisingly well with a clean uncluttered window XP install. Using chrome for a browser since its light.

I'm using it mostly for internet browsing in the second bedroom but the lack of ram makes lots of flash application run slow or just don't run at all lol.

Now wich linux would u guys recommend to give it a bit more juice as with XP and chrome running at least 140 mb of ram are already taken...

Think flash would be possible with a much lighter OS?

EDIT:

Just forgot to mention, since my gf just ask me if she could watch her show, currently video don't play on it but i cant tell if its the CPU or the ram since it shoots through the roof that is keeping youtube video and the likes from playing...
So would video be watchable as well with a lighter OS, if not its still fine if we can browse faster

[TurtlePerson2]

Don't know from experience, but I don't think that the CPU could handle flash with any OS. When you consider that a P4 would run flash poorly on XP, you have to imagine that a similar problem would exist with a P3 on a lighter OS. I'm assuming that you're wanting to watch Youtube videos at a resolution higher than 240P.

[StuG]

Try Mandriva

[cheesyking]

Yeah, if anything flash performs worse on Linux. That system just isn't going to cut it for flash, this Atom I'm using at the moment can't really handle it.

It would make quite a nice little home file/web server if you should need such a thing.

[[SDG]Mantis]

Yeah, if anything flash performs worse on Linux. That system just isn't going to cut it for flash, this Atom I'm using at the moment can't really handle it.

It would make quite a nice little home file/web server if you should need such a thing.

Flash 10.3 makes a big difference under Linux. My E-350 rig with F14 can do flash fine...even HD.

I honestly don't think that a PIII will handle flash with any OS. It will not even really handle a modern linux distro with Gnome or KDE. You would need to use something very light with XCFE or something equally light.

I would have suggested Xubuntu Live as something to try...but you need 256 MB to run it. You still can install it with the alternate installer (required just 64 MB).

Slax, Puppy, Vector all might work. Still don't know if flash will run with any of them on such old hardware.

[just brew it!]

A bare-bones alternate install of Debian or Ubuntu, plus LXDE for the desktop may be worth a shot. I agree with the people who are saying a PIII is gonna have issues with Flash content though.

[bthylafh]

I'd go with Puppy Linux, or if that's too light you might be able to get Lubuntu working; the RAM might be problematic with that, though.

Flash is right out. It'll probably work, but you won't like it much. You haven't got the RAM or the CPU for it. Possibly you could get something usable out of the HTML5 version of Youtube, but don't count on it.

Edit: given how old this is, you should probably look at Puppy Wary, which is Puppy optimized for old hardware.

[kc77]

Xubuntu will run with those specs.

[just brew it!]

Xubuntu will run with those specs.

Just barely. They claim it'll run in 192, but recommend at least 512.

[axeman]

I'm running Lubuntu, I think it would run on 196 (192?) mb of ram pretty well from what my memory usage is. Flash, well that would be a complete write off, you'd have to turn it off. Even old 1ghz+ Pentium M and Athlon XP systems struggle a bit with Flash videos, so a ~500mhz machine is not going to cut it. That's flash's fault though, flash sucks I don't what I'm missing with flash, 'cause back in the day you could play DivX (DVD resolution) movies just fine with pretty much anything more than 300 mhz, no hardware acceleration. Are modern codecs that much more demanding of the decoder? Seems kinda fishy since the WDTVLive in my living room manages at least 720p easily with some sort of 300mhz MIPS CPU - unless perhaps there is a lot more going on there like much more advanced SIMD instruction support or some sort of ASIC doing the heavy lifting... But I digress, Flash isn't going to be a super happy fun time on an an old sub-1GHz processor anymore.

[SS4]

Well that leaves me with quite a bit of distro to test

I guess video playback (even low quality) might not be great but im moslty doing this for fun and this way my GF can check her FB or email or whatever normal browsing she wants while im busy on my computer. She wont be able to play most facebook games but yeah, at least if i can make this rig a little faster itl be better to use. right now its kinda sluggish if we multi tab in chrome...

Anf yeah sorry for the typo its:

Intel Pentium III Processor
548 MHz, 192 MB of RAM

I'll edit my first post as well.

Thx for the input thus far, ill give more input by the week end as ill be busy with work and ill be upgrading my main rig as well, wich is more important than the second comp for the time being

[JustAnEngineer]

I suppose that it falls to me to suggest sending that ancient PC off to the happy hunting grounds and picking up an inexpensive modern system.

A refurbished Inspiron 570 or 580 or Optiplex 580 from the Dell Outlet could do the trick for under $400.

[SS4]

Its not my main PC, its just something I happen to have and since it still works I was wondering how it could be used best. Of course I can't use it as a folding machine but its ok for normal web-browsing so far.

The point of this thread was to find how to get the most out of this system instead of throwing it away. I figured a linux box would be a good idea. It might be used a a server for an old game or something as well lol, anyways I'm open to suggestions to see what can be done with this hardware until it fails. So far, light web browsing under linux seems like the best option.

[[SDG]Mantis]

Xubuntu will run with those specs.

Just barely. They claim it'll run in 192, but recommend at least 512.

Come to think of it, I did once install Xubuntu on a P-M laptop. I do not recall the processor speed, but it did have little enough ram to need the alternate installer. I think that it probably had only 128MB. It did not run well at all... and that we several versions ago.

[kc77]

Xubuntu will run with those specs.

Just barely. They claim it'll run in 192, but recommend at least 512.

Come to think of it, I did once install Xubuntu on a P-M laptop. I do not recall the processor speed, but it did have little enough ram to need the alternate installer. I think that it probably had only 128MB. It did not run well at all... and that we several versions ago.

Yeah when I ran with the same specs I could only install it using the alternate installer. Performance wasn't great but it was a Celeron so it's hard to judge just how bad it would be. You could definitely surf the internet on it though.

[Flatland_Spider]

I would install Arch Linux and turn it into a DNS/DHCP server. It also wouldn't be bad serving up some static webpages with a lightweight webserver.

If you want to use it as a Linux desktop, I would say Arch Linux with Fluxbox as the DE and Opera as the browser. I don't think any amount of software tricks are going to make Flash run though. It's just too old, and flash is too much of a resource hog.

You could also try Haiku OS, NetBSD, or FreeBSD. Haiku is a clone of BeOS, and that OS flew on hardware much worse then that. Just keep in mind it's a very new OS, and as such, there are going to be hiccups. NetBSD and FreeBSD are other FOSS Unix-like OSes that excel at running as stripped servers. NetBSD more so then FreeBSD, but either one is good.

[Blazex]

lubuntu should work perfectly fine, just a couple extras added in and flash should run with a couple slow downs here and there while not fullscreen, wont be amazing but it does play on a 500mhz athlon laptop i set it up on the other day; everything else is fairly snappy