Old vs current distro

[MASONTX]

In gerneral, the advice to newbies has been to use a current version of the distro of their choice, but what if they are on old hardware that wont support their choice? For example, they really like Ubuntu, but have a computer <1 Ghz CPU, <256 Mb ram, or <10 GB HD. Would they be better served by using a different distro that is lighter, or maybe seeking out an Ubuntu 8.04 or even 6.04, that will work within their hadware limitations?

Or, from a different perspective: You are happily running XXXlinux 3.0 when version 4.0 comes out. Unfortunately it requires more resources than your computer has. Should you look for a current distro that works with your specs, or stay with the older version?

[oz]

In some cases, certain older systems might actually work better on an older release of a distribution. Other than for security updates, I personally see no reason to update anything if it's working properly and the user is happy with the system the way it is. Of course, when systems are allowed to run for months or years without any updates, the whole thing can become rather troublesome when it is decided that it's time for that major update.

On the other hand, I use Arch, a rolling release where there are usually package updates on a daily basis. I will generally go ahead and install those updates and if I should find that my system is not capable of handing certain updates, maybe it's time for a hardware upgrade, or I can downgrade the troubling packages and continue to use the system as is without installing any further updates.

In the end, I see it as a matter of personal preference.

[GNU-Fan]

In my experience, newer distributions are the better choice most of the time, even for older hardware. Especially if the kernel/drivers have seen improvements.

I run Debian Unstable (which is due for regular release in maybe two years) on a 10yr. old system. It seems that it runs faster than the older versions.

I think it is more a question of choosing the right desktop environment. For example, use XFCE instead of KDE4 etc. So my choice is to go lighter and stay current, provided the user has some experience and can deal with new bugs now and then.

[Bemk]

I think, as Ozar put it, it depends on the situation.

Picking what you do upgrade and what you won't, would be the best option. Most newbies though wouldn't have a clue what they're upgrading, and just want to run the updates to feel safe. In those cases I suggest something like I did for my grandfather, which is to design your own lightweight system on top of a current release, on top of a distribution which allows it. I used a minimal install of Debian.

[Jonathan183]

advice to newbies has been to use a current version of the distro of their choice ...

Or, from a different perspective: You are happily running XXXlinux 3.0 when version 4.0 comes out....

As others have said ... it depends on the situation.

In most instance with a net connection I would recommend using a currently supported distro. Expecting a newbie to keep a distro patched after it is no longer supported is a bit much.

If no net connection is available/used then an older version of the distro of their choice might work out better.

[techieMoe]

In my personal experience, newer is almost always better. There are lighter versions of the major distributions that will work with older hardware. Using an older version of a distribution leaves you open to security vulnerabilities, not to mention old bugs in the software that may have been addressed since.

As others have said, I see no reason to use an older version of a distribution unless I'm doing some sort of historical retrospective. Know your hardware limits and choose a current distribution that won't bog it down. They do exist.

[Dave68]

I have to say that I am for current Distros. As techieMoe stated,

"Know your hardware limits and choose a current distribution that won't bog it down. They do exist."

I have older systems, but they all run current Distros. (Xubuntu 10.04 and Isadora LXDE). Issues are bound to turn up regardless, but they can be worked out and there are a large number of Forums available to obtain support.

My Two Cents,
Dave

[MASONTX]

I agree, in general, but as a newbie I've run into a bit of a prblem finding a distro that works with the odd hardware in my old Toshiba P3 laptop, and fit into the 6 GB HDD. My latest trial is AntiX, which works great, but when I checked for updates it tried to download over 500 updates. At update 81, it ran out of HD space and the rest of the upgrades failed.

[Dave68]

Ever thought about Peppermint or Damn Small Linux? I've heard round about that Puppy Linux is pretty nice as well.

The only one I've looked at in this List is Peppermint. It's LXDE Based, but I'm not sure of the System requirements. It is pretty fast on older machines though.

Just A Thought,
Dave

[MASONTX]

I've had Puppy, then DSL, then back to puppy, then on to AntiX. I also tried Goblinx which worked fine from the disk, just slow, but couldn't install Lilo to the MBR properly. I like AntiX best because I prefer a distro that doesn't require me to mount unmount or manually install anything. The downside is that to get the full service, it takes more room for the associated wiazrds progamming.
All I really need for this notebook is Abi word, a bible program (part time preacher, so I prepare sermons on it), Foxfire for web browsing, a few simple games (Majong, Mastermind, solitaire, and sudoku), and whatever it takes to drive the pices of hardware. I wont be doing video editing, photo editing, chat, blogging, listening to muxic, watching movies, programming, or much of anything else on this machine. I guess I'll go through and remove the stuff I don't need and see if it will fit on my HD then.