In some places (IE: UK), it's inexpensive to grab an old rig from a landfill or acquaintance, then use that with Linux. Old Dell Optiplex machines cannot be flung out the windows fast enough, for example — that's free — or you could go onto a market website (IE: Ebay) to get one super cheap, and I mean super cheap. Unless you're somewhere in the world where even ancient computers cost an arm and a leg.
I get where you're coming from, but the world does move forward. Luckily, Linux offers an absurd amount of opportunities and solutions for backwards compatibility and support for ancient hardware. As others have stated, Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu, so there's only so much they can reasonably do. As people have also suggested, there's LMDE, which will probably be much more up your alley.
Supporting old computers
Forum rules
Do not post support questions here. Before you post read the forum rules. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 6 months after creation.
Do not post support questions here. Before you post read the forum rules. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 6 months after creation.
Re: Supporting old computers
I'm also Terminalforlife on GitHub.
-
Portreve
- Level 13
- Posts: 4870
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:03 am
- Location: Within 20,004 km of YOU!
- Contact:
Re: Supporting old computers
Well, to revisit a point I made above and engage in some further musings on the topic...
There comes a point when there are what could be objectively defined as "obsolete" hardware. In this context, what I mean by "obsolete" is that even if it physically functions, it is absent so many features and capabilities (to use a couple old examples, something along the lines of "MMX" or "SSE") and/or its speed, or absence of cache, or whatever else, that there's no point in bothering to support it.
Another point to raise in going into this discussion is that it is a positive natural trait, both in biology and in human culture, to progress, to advance, to strive for and to achieve a condition which is better than what existed previously. It is also a fact, again whether we're talking biology or society, that progress always comes at a cost. That's just how it is, and whether anyone "likes" or "dislikes" that doesn't enter into it. The caveat to that, of course, is that society is controlled collectively by the people who form it, and that collective set of individuals can deliberately choose not to progress. By extension, humankind's collective society and the progress which it either makes or experiences can be controlled by its members. So even though biologically there's little choice but to keep developing and advancing and at some point leaving the lesser developed groups behind to eventually (presumably) become extinct, society can choose not to advance or evolve or develop. Mind you, I'm really speaking at the lowest level and in theoretical terms because, as a practical matter, human society chooses not to keep itself from advancing.
I include the above as starting points here both to demonstrate I am trying to be as thoughtful and comprehensive in my thoughtfulness as possible, as well as to give a basis for my reasoning on the topic, which is to follow. I'd also like to quickly add that I am NOT including the machinations of the corporate world here (until or unless I mention it specifically) because I'm just trying to examine the physical reality in which all these things take place, and then extrapolate from there.
Classically, improvement and evolution and any such kind of concept has not involved the generation of waste (i.e. creating and filling up landfills, etc.) because I&E revolved around two specific things: biological evolution, or societal (i.e. behavioral norms/customs, general knowledge, etc.) evolution. There's no physical waste products associated (in the literal sense) with that. And looked at from a certain perspective, it's the same with what we think of as "technology"; we find better and better ways of doing things. However, as much as there is a philosophical aspect to all of this, when it comes to technology, there is a physical (i.e. waste products) component to it.
Arguably, it's never been the case that recycling already-produced items was impossible. We've always been able to take concrete or other, more basic forms of such material, break them down into powder, and add water and revitalize a binder agent and re-use those materials. We've always been able to take metals and re-melt them and re-form them into something updated. For example, if a section of train track were damaged, even if in the short term it had to be replaced with fresh track, there's never been a reason we couldn't take the old train track and melt it down and re-form it into a length of track again.
Likewise, it's always been possible to take circuit boards, chips, etc., and break them down into their constituent raw materials and then just take that reacquired raw material and make new chips, or new resistors, or new capacitors, out of it. And even if there might be some types of component failure which result in materials so badly compromised that they cannot be reused, then arguably that could be the exception as opposed to the norm.
The big thing here (at this point) is that up until relatively recently, it's simply not occurred to society at large that "just make / buy a new one" is not and cannot be an indefinite solution, even if for no other reason than the Earth is not infinite in size or infinite in resources. The thing I think which helped kind of blind society to this reality is humankind as we know it has been operational on this planet for the last 100-200 thousand years with no apparent lack-of-resources or screwing-up-the-planet type of issues, and there simply wasn't the data at hand to predict it was a problem. The planet's a huge place, there's plenty to go around, nobody has ever seen 𝑥 or 𝑦 or 𝑧 resource/planet poisoning/etc. type issues before, and so forth. The only parallel which immediately comes to mind is people have been smoking tobacco products now for the past several thousand years (for Native American indigenous populations) and the last 500 or 600 years or so vis a vis Europeans and landed immigrants to the Americas (i.e. folk moving here from Europe and their descendants). And in all that time, there's been who even knows how many instances of lung cancer and a whole lot of other cancer, and it "only" just occurred to anyone within the last century that maybe, just maybe, tobacco inhalation might be the culprit. It seems to me that hundreds of years of medical problems should have been a tip-off, but anyhow...
So now we're finally to the point where we have developed computers, we have iterated that specific sort of technology to the point where "regular people" have come to learn it's something of use, and then we've also iterated to the point where there's enough demand to commoditize them, and that means now we're filling up landfills with computers. And cars. And boats. And toasters. And goodness only knows what else. We're also now to a point where we have come to realize and even accept that just this behavior alone, to say nothing of environmental contamination, or climate change, etc., are real and we're really having a pretty big and negative impact on this planet which we all share, forget how seemingly large of a sphere it may be. (Oh, and for the record, it's not all that big. "The Pale Blue Dot" by Voyager I makes that unambiguously clear enough.
Somewhat in line with the spirit of my previous post, here's the whole of this topic distilled down into one simple question:
Where do we go from here?
I wrote all of this simply with the thought and hope that this will lead to a longer and deeper discussion, because while on the one hand we shouldn't quit inventing and developing and improving, we also can't produce and then trash unending desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones. Also, while there's some minimum ante to be a part of the functioning, modern world in the sense of having as well as upgrading computers (I'm using that to refer to all of these sorts of devices) we also know not everyone can afford to do that. How far do we bend over backwards to accommodate that, and at what point do we just cut segments of the global population off and, in effect, say "Too bad!" ?
There comes a point when there are what could be objectively defined as "obsolete" hardware. In this context, what I mean by "obsolete" is that even if it physically functions, it is absent so many features and capabilities (to use a couple old examples, something along the lines of "MMX" or "SSE") and/or its speed, or absence of cache, or whatever else, that there's no point in bothering to support it.
Another point to raise in going into this discussion is that it is a positive natural trait, both in biology and in human culture, to progress, to advance, to strive for and to achieve a condition which is better than what existed previously. It is also a fact, again whether we're talking biology or society, that progress always comes at a cost. That's just how it is, and whether anyone "likes" or "dislikes" that doesn't enter into it. The caveat to that, of course, is that society is controlled collectively by the people who form it, and that collective set of individuals can deliberately choose not to progress. By extension, humankind's collective society and the progress which it either makes or experiences can be controlled by its members. So even though biologically there's little choice but to keep developing and advancing and at some point leaving the lesser developed groups behind to eventually (presumably) become extinct, society can choose not to advance or evolve or develop. Mind you, I'm really speaking at the lowest level and in theoretical terms because, as a practical matter, human society chooses not to keep itself from advancing.
I include the above as starting points here both to demonstrate I am trying to be as thoughtful and comprehensive in my thoughtfulness as possible, as well as to give a basis for my reasoning on the topic, which is to follow. I'd also like to quickly add that I am NOT including the machinations of the corporate world here (until or unless I mention it specifically) because I'm just trying to examine the physical reality in which all these things take place, and then extrapolate from there.
Classically, improvement and evolution and any such kind of concept has not involved the generation of waste (i.e. creating and filling up landfills, etc.) because I&E revolved around two specific things: biological evolution, or societal (i.e. behavioral norms/customs, general knowledge, etc.) evolution. There's no physical waste products associated (in the literal sense) with that. And looked at from a certain perspective, it's the same with what we think of as "technology"; we find better and better ways of doing things. However, as much as there is a philosophical aspect to all of this, when it comes to technology, there is a physical (i.e. waste products) component to it.
Arguably, it's never been the case that recycling already-produced items was impossible. We've always been able to take concrete or other, more basic forms of such material, break them down into powder, and add water and revitalize a binder agent and re-use those materials. We've always been able to take metals and re-melt them and re-form them into something updated. For example, if a section of train track were damaged, even if in the short term it had to be replaced with fresh track, there's never been a reason we couldn't take the old train track and melt it down and re-form it into a length of track again.
Likewise, it's always been possible to take circuit boards, chips, etc., and break them down into their constituent raw materials and then just take that reacquired raw material and make new chips, or new resistors, or new capacitors, out of it. And even if there might be some types of component failure which result in materials so badly compromised that they cannot be reused, then arguably that could be the exception as opposed to the norm.
The big thing here (at this point) is that up until relatively recently, it's simply not occurred to society at large that "just make / buy a new one" is not and cannot be an indefinite solution, even if for no other reason than the Earth is not infinite in size or infinite in resources. The thing I think which helped kind of blind society to this reality is humankind as we know it has been operational on this planet for the last 100-200 thousand years with no apparent lack-of-resources or screwing-up-the-planet type of issues, and there simply wasn't the data at hand to predict it was a problem. The planet's a huge place, there's plenty to go around, nobody has ever seen 𝑥 or 𝑦 or 𝑧 resource/planet poisoning/etc. type issues before, and so forth. The only parallel which immediately comes to mind is people have been smoking tobacco products now for the past several thousand years (for Native American indigenous populations) and the last 500 or 600 years or so vis a vis Europeans and landed immigrants to the Americas (i.e. folk moving here from Europe and their descendants). And in all that time, there's been who even knows how many instances of lung cancer and a whole lot of other cancer, and it "only" just occurred to anyone within the last century that maybe, just maybe, tobacco inhalation might be the culprit. It seems to me that hundreds of years of medical problems should have been a tip-off, but anyhow...
So now we're finally to the point where we have developed computers, we have iterated that specific sort of technology to the point where "regular people" have come to learn it's something of use, and then we've also iterated to the point where there's enough demand to commoditize them, and that means now we're filling up landfills with computers. And cars. And boats. And toasters. And goodness only knows what else. We're also now to a point where we have come to realize and even accept that just this behavior alone, to say nothing of environmental contamination, or climate change, etc., are real and we're really having a pretty big and negative impact on this planet which we all share, forget how seemingly large of a sphere it may be. (Oh, and for the record, it's not all that big. "The Pale Blue Dot" by Voyager I makes that unambiguously clear enough.
Somewhat in line with the spirit of my previous post, here's the whole of this topic distilled down into one simple question:
Where do we go from here?
I wrote all of this simply with the thought and hope that this will lead to a longer and deeper discussion, because while on the one hand we shouldn't quit inventing and developing and improving, we also can't produce and then trash unending desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones. Also, while there's some minimum ante to be a part of the functioning, modern world in the sense of having as well as upgrading computers (I'm using that to refer to all of these sorts of devices) we also know not everyone can afford to do that. How far do we bend over backwards to accommodate that, and at what point do we just cut segments of the global population off and, in effect, say "Too bad!" ?
Flying this flag in support of freedom 🇺🇦
Recommended keyboard layout: English (intl., with AltGR dead keys)
Podcasts: Linux Unplugged, Destination Linux
Also check out Thor Hartmannsson's Linux Tips YouTube Channel
Recommended keyboard layout: English (intl., with AltGR dead keys)
Podcasts: Linux Unplugged, Destination Linux
Also check out Thor Hartmannsson's Linux Tips YouTube Channel
Re: Supporting old computers
No wonder people go back to Windows if that confronts them every time they ask a question.Portreve wrote: ⤴Wed Aug 24, 2022 6:14 pm Well, to revisit a point I made above and engage in some further musings on the topic...
There comes a point when there are what could be objectively defined as "obsolete" hardware. In this context, what I mean by "obsolete" is that even if it physically functions, it is absent so many features and capabilities (to use a couple old examples, something along the lines of "MMX" or "SSE") and/or its speed, or absence of cache, or whatever else, that there's no point in bothering to support it.
(...)
I wrote all of this simply with the thought and hope that this will lead to a longer and deeper discussion, because while on the one hand we shouldn't quit inventing and developing and improving, we also can't produce and then trash unending desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones. Also, while there's some minimum ante to be a part of the functioning, modern world in the sense of having as well as upgrading computers (I'm using that to refer to all of these sorts of devices) we also know not everyone can afford to do that. How far do we bend over backwards to accommodate that, and at what point do we just cut segments of the global population off and, in effect, say "Too bad!" ?
Linux not working on old laptops was happening 10 years ago, my Dell worked fine on Ubuntu 11.04 (2.6??? Kernel) but when I updated to 12.04 it would never boot, the 3.???? Kernel was incompatible with the hardware.
I tried LMDE4 on a Dell laptop last year and it was fine but on LMDE5 it was a world of constant freezes and no amount of waiting would see it work until a hard re-boot. Then it would freeze again.
The Toshiba Laptop I am using is 10 years old (possibly 11 years if as suspected it was new old stock). Its working great on Mint 21 but I accept it will not work forever. Just hope I get 5 years out of it.
Last edited by Moem on Thu Aug 25, 2022 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Trimmed a quote. Please quote selectively. We can all scroll up if we want to re-read.
Reason: Trimmed a quote. Please quote selectively. We can all scroll up if we want to re-read.
-
Portreve
- Level 13
- Posts: 4870
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:03 am
- Location: Within 20,004 km of YOU!
- Contact:
Re: Supporting old computers
There was a whole lot you are replying to. What in particular are you referring to in this sentence?
Flying this flag in support of freedom 🇺🇦
Recommended keyboard layout: English (intl., with AltGR dead keys)
Podcasts: Linux Unplugged, Destination Linux
Also check out Thor Hartmannsson's Linux Tips YouTube Channel
Recommended keyboard layout: English (intl., with AltGR dead keys)
Podcasts: Linux Unplugged, Destination Linux
Also check out Thor Hartmannsson's Linux Tips YouTube Channel
Re: Supporting old computers
Thought it was pretty obvious.
Re: Supporting old computers
Instead of only saying it was "pretty obvious", it might've been more helpful to actually point out what you found so.
I'm also Terminalforlife on GitHub.
-
The Muffin Man
- Level 5
- Posts: 716
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:31 pm
- Location: Drury Lane, NC
Re: Supporting old computers
Remember it took 50 MB of nitrogen cooled Hard Drive space to store the Genesis Project in Star Trek II, The Wrath of Kahn.
"Go ahead. I don't shop here."
Re: Supporting old computers
Old people are living longer but not getting richer.
Old people will soon outnumber young people.
Poor people already outnumber everyone else.
Linux was intended to be "for the people - by the people"
While linux Mint and Ubuntu may not have the same target audience, they must surely be aware that they are cutting away segments of their user-base.
Segments which will one day very soon be the largest segment.
People don't get younger.
The number of poor people will always grow.
The question was never about which distro to change to...
More like; will the devs of the currently most popular distros put a bit more thought into their target users?
Or perhaps they are already thinking along the lines of "for the people who can afford the hardware - by people who just don't care about everyone else."
D.
Old people will soon outnumber young people.
Poor people already outnumber everyone else.
Linux was intended to be "for the people - by the people"
While linux Mint and Ubuntu may not have the same target audience, they must surely be aware that they are cutting away segments of their user-base.
Segments which will one day very soon be the largest segment.
People don't get younger.
The number of poor people will always grow.
The question was never about which distro to change to...
More like; will the devs of the currently most popular distros put a bit more thought into their target users?
Or perhaps they are already thinking along the lines of "for the people who can afford the hardware - by people who just don't care about everyone else."
D.
Re: Supporting old computers
I remember my first 20mb hard drive, and thinking "I will never fill this thing up!" Now I have 5tb on my desktop and I am wondering if I need to get another drive!? Digital photography (especially .tiff files ) fill things up fast.The Muffin Man wrote: ⤴Thu Aug 25, 2022 4:43 pm Remember it took 50 MB of nitrogen cooled Hard Drive space to store the Genesis Project in Star Trek II, The Wrath of Kahn.
Re: Supporting old computers
So if I am following this . . . . . people are upset because linux does not support really old hardware - not old hardware like this 12 year old PC I am using to post this on but really old hardware ? My wife thinks the Pandemic has made people nuts . . . . I am starting to agree.
-
The Muffin Man
- Level 5
- Posts: 716
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:31 pm
- Location: Drury Lane, NC
Re: Supporting old computers
I have Mint XFCE running on a e2180 CPU Dell desktop. That would make it 15 years old.
That's ancient.
That's ancient.
"Go ahead. I don't shop here."
Re: Supporting old computers
People were nuts before the Pandemic, they've just started to standout more now.
Last year we said, 'Things can't go on like this', and they didn't, they got worse.
[Will Rogers]
There are two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither works.
[Will Rogers]
[Will Rogers]
There are two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither works.
[Will Rogers]
Re: Supporting old computers
Linux was intended to be on open source Unix compatible plugin kernel.
GNU/Linux, which is what is actually being referred to when most people say 'Linux', is not the same as the Linux Kernel Project, but it is totally pararitic on it. No Linux kenrel, no GNU/Linux. Period.
ANd the Linux Kernel Project is a foundation paid for by many of the biggest companies in the tech world. Microsoft has been one of them for years. They don't give a tinker's damn about old hardware, they have enough to do with the new stuff.
Really, all this long winded pompous pseudointellectual deluded anticorporate Linux blather is tiresome.
Last edited by SMG on Sat Aug 27, 2022 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited to comply with forum rules.
Reason: Edited to comply with forum rules.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong - H. L. Mencken
-
Venus Flytrap
- Level 2
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:32 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Supporting old computers
I greatly appreciate that Mint is able to support older computers that may otherwise end up in a landfill. Obviously there is a reasonable limit where something is too old. The computer I'm using now is my Frankenstein model. Originally built by myself in 2009. Unfortunately, its ASUS motherboard died a year and a half ago from swollen caps. However, the CPU (e7600), 4GB memory (2GBx2), video card, HDD, power-supply, DVD drives and case were all good. The crossroad for me was; do I toss it to the recyclers, or recap the board? Instead, I decided to do something different. I bought online one of those cheap Chinese motherboards which are new (board, caps etc) but use recycled old chipsets (Intel G31 in my case). I figured, an eco-friendly solution. So I rebuilt it with that. I realized that it was too weak for Windows 10, so I installed Mint. Guess what? Great success. Frankenstein has been running rock solid for over a year now. Incredibly stable. I can run it non-stop for days/weeks without any issues. The best upgrade was buying a SSD for the OS, and using the old HDD for temporary storage. I'm real pleased. I use this computer for emails, browsing, word processing (LibreOffice) and not much more. I do own more powerful (new) computers, but the lesson here is, if you can save something, why not.
Landfill 0, Frankenstein 1.
Landfill 0, Frankenstein 1.
System: Mint Cinnamon 21.1. CPU: Intel E7600. RAM: 4GB. Video: ATI HD 4830. SSD: Kingston KC600 512GB (boot-drive) & Kingston A400, 480GB (backup). Display: ASUS VA24DQ 23.8"
Re: Supporting old computers
Moderator note: Post violating forum rules has been removed.
A woman typing on a laptop with LM20.3 Cinnamon.
-
Samarian Sunset
- Level 4
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:09 pm
Re: Supporting old computers
I didn't know there were motherboards available that had recycled chipsets that's good to know...What did that motherboard cost approximately?Venus Flytrap wrote: ⤴Sat Aug 27, 2022 10:34 am ...its ASUS motherboard died a year and a half ago from swollen caps... I bought online one of those cheap Chinese motherboards which are new (board, caps etc) but use recycled old chipsets...
-
antikythera
- Level 15
- Posts: 5721
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:52 pm
- Location: Cymru
Re: Supporting old computers
ASRock carry on making older chipset motherboards way after the bigger brands. They're a safer bet
I’ll tell you a DNS joke but be advised, it could take up to 24 hours for everyone to get it.
-
Venus Flytrap
- Level 2
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:32 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Supporting old computers
Samarian Sunset --
There are a few factories in China that produce these boards that use recycled (used/salvaged) chipsets. I bought mine via Amazon, but you can also get them on sites like Alibaba, eBay etc. I paid around $50 Canadian, shipped. I probably could have gotten it cheaper, but I got what I needed. It's not a great board in so far that the BIOS settings don't let you overclock. But for what it is, it fit the bill. I think most of these boards get sold to third-world countries where the end users have financial limitations. For example, I gather that in India, a popular distributor of these boards is named "Zebronics." It's certainly a good way to keep older technology still functioning, and help those in need. Or for people like me who just wanted to save my old PC parts from going to the landfill.
There are a few factories in China that produce these boards that use recycled (used/salvaged) chipsets. I bought mine via Amazon, but you can also get them on sites like Alibaba, eBay etc. I paid around $50 Canadian, shipped. I probably could have gotten it cheaper, but I got what I needed. It's not a great board in so far that the BIOS settings don't let you overclock. But for what it is, it fit the bill. I think most of these boards get sold to third-world countries where the end users have financial limitations. For example, I gather that in India, a popular distributor of these boards is named "Zebronics." It's certainly a good way to keep older technology still functioning, and help those in need. Or for people like me who just wanted to save my old PC parts from going to the landfill.
System: Mint Cinnamon 21.1. CPU: Intel E7600. RAM: 4GB. Video: ATI HD 4830. SSD: Kingston KC600 512GB (boot-drive) & Kingston A400, 480GB (backup). Display: ASUS VA24DQ 23.8"
-
Venus Flytrap
- Level 2
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:32 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Supporting old computers
That's generally true. Unfortunately, in my case, ASROCK don't make any new socket 775 boards. I'm using a CPU from 2009; ancient history. I could have bought a second hand 775 board, but then I'd be inheriting old capacitors that will likely imminently fail if they haven't already. At least with the recycled board I got, it came with new capacitors and the parts that would need to be refreshed.antikythera wrote: ⤴Sat Aug 27, 2022 5:15 pm ASRock carry on making older chipset motherboards way after the bigger brands. They're a safer bet
System: Mint Cinnamon 21.1. CPU: Intel E7600. RAM: 4GB. Video: ATI HD 4830. SSD: Kingston KC600 512GB (boot-drive) & Kingston A400, 480GB (backup). Display: ASUS VA24DQ 23.8"