Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
Hi all ive been using ubuntu for a while and cant and i want to learn fedora so what i need to know whats the best used box to look ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    14

    What is the best inexpensive or usedd pc for linux


    Hi all ive been using ubuntu for a while and cant and i want to learn fedora so what i need to know whats the best used box to look for iv been playing with ubuntu for about 6 months and i think fedora will force me to learn commandline on a more regular baseis and i dont now exactly what i would need a box is ok but laptop ideal i dont have much money it would prob be baught at a local pawn shop for 3 bills or less runing xp or vista native

    Thanks dan

  2. #2
    Linux Guru rokytnji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,850
    Depends where you live I guess.

    My IBM M57 Desktop is Linux compatible. My Dumpster Emachine 3407 (free out of the trash can) runs AntiX fine And dandy.

    Screenr - rokytnji: Antix 11 Base Iso. Fluxbox. Lxpanels. Playing Antix-Box of Birds. This is Linux at it's best. Lean and Mean.

    My Acer Aspire 5534 runs 64 bit AntiX very well. My EEEPC 701sd and 900 run Linux just fine. My IBM T23 and A22m refuse to give up the ghost and run Linux just fine. My Panasonic cf-48 runs Linux just fine.
    My Samsung RV510 has Mint 14 running all hardware right out of the box. No special tweaking needed by me.
    Linux Registered User # 475019
    Lead,Follow, or get the heck out of the way
    Tech Books
    Free Linux Books
    Newbie Guide
    Courses at Home

  3. #3
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    28
    Since when has there been 64bit Antix? That's awesome!

  4. #4
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Halesowen, West Midlands, UK
    Posts
    107
    Rather than having a standalone box you can use VirtualBox VM to install Fedora on your existing Ubuntu.

    It's quick so you won't notice a difference.

    I am using openSUSE and I have many VirtualBox VM's I run under it, same on an Ubuntu box.

  5. #5
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Halesowen, West Midlands, UK
    Posts
    107
    Rather than another box you can use VirtualBox on your existing one to install any number of Virtual Machines including Fedora.

    VirtualBox is fast so you won't notice a difference and it's ideal for testing other distros and even Windows.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  6. #6
    Linux Newbie Syndacate's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Hell..no literally, this state is hell..
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Siddly View Post
    Rather than another box you can use VirtualBox on your existing one to install any number of Virtual Machines including Fedora.

    VirtualBox is fast so you won't notice a difference and it's ideal for testing other distros and even Windows.
    Desktop emulation & virtualization is *never* fast. It may be "not bad" - but that's about as good as it's going to get, IMO.

    @ OP:
    Fedora won't force you to use the command line anymore than ubuntu will. Both are very end-user friendly desktop distributions involving little (if any) command line interaction.

    Why not either use a separate partition on the drive you're currently running ubuntu on or buy another hard drive and install Fedora on that. You can then run either on your current system.

  7. #7
    Penguin of trust elija's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Either at home or at work or down the pub
    Posts
    3,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Syndacate View Post
    Desktop emulation & virtualization is *never* fast. It may be "not bad" - but that's about as good as it's going to get, IMO.
    If your processor properly supports virtualisation and you allocate the necessary resources it's almost the same speed as running on real iron. I have run three dual core machines on my quad core desktop without any real performance drop in any of them. It does help to have plenty of ram; even if you do overbook that too.
    What do we want?
    Time machines!

    When do we want 'em?
    Doesn't really matter does it!?


    Conkybots: Interactive plugins for your Conkys!

  8. #8
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    14
    Cool iv used vb for xp didnt think my box was fast enouph for multiple machines
    Its a core2duo @2.33 w/4 gigs of ram

    Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD

  9. #9
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    28
    Although virtualbox is awesome, I don't think it's the answer for the OP. It tends to need lots of ram to run well, and if you buy a used machine it likely won't have much and I'm not sure you'll enjoy the experience.

    If you WANT to learn command line and aren't set on using fedora, try arch (read the wiki), or debian netinstall and build your system ground up. You'll likely end up with a lean system that runs well on old hardware. I've installed both on a variety of hardware, without any great problems with hardware compatibility. The worst tends to be wireless, but ndiswrapper/ndis-gtk usually works if you can get the proprietary driver for your card.

    If you want a distro that tends to work out of the box without needing the command line, try Mint with xfce. If you want a bit of a mix (i.e. works well out of the box, but may make you use command line and edit config files), try Antix (icewm to start).

    The only hardware on which I've had trouble installing linux in general is some older HP machines. Also, stay away from broadcom wireless cards...lots of problems there. I've found that intel chipsets work well.

    I hope I've made sense, and I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.

  10. #10
    Linux Newbie Syndacate's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Hell..no literally, this state is hell..
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by elija View Post
    If your processor properly supports virtualisation and you allocate the necessary resources it's almost the same speed as running on real iron. I have run three dual core machines on my quad core desktop without any real performance drop in any of them. It does help to have plenty of ram; even if you do overbook that too.
    While I don't have the best system ever, it has plenty of power for virtualization. It's only an old I7 with 12GB of memory.

    Neither of which matter - at all. The bottleneck (by a long shot) isn't the processing power or the memory, it's the minuscule amount of GFX memory that the VM has. Vbox allows what, 128MB of memory? That's pretty sad. Is it *usable* - yes, is it optimal? Well all graphics will suck, and I've never *not* noticed that I was using a VM at some level or another.

    So that's why I chose my original statement, and stand by it, desktop emulation sucks.

    Sure, if you're not using it for anything even remotely intensive and it's running in the background it gets the job done, it's easy to start a server on one and just let it chill in the background..but it kind of ends there. I guess one rule of thumb you (I) can use is: If you can't do it on a netbook, chances are it's going to suck when virtualized.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacopag View Post
    Although virtualbox is awesome, I don't think it's the answer for the OP. It tends to need lots of ram to run well, and if you buy a used machine it likely won't have much and I'm not sure you'll enjoy the experience.

    If you WANT to learn command line and aren't set on using fedora, try arch (read the wiki), or debian netinstall and build your system ground up. You'll likely end up with a lean system that runs well on old hardware. I've installed both on a variety of hardware, without any great problems with hardware compatibility. The worst tends to be wireless, but ndiswrapper/ndis-gtk usually works if you can get the proprietary driver for your card.

    If you want a distro that tends to work out of the box without needing the command line, try Mint with xfce. If you want a bit of a mix (i.e. works well out of the box, but may make you use command line and edit config files), try Antix (icewm to start).

    The only hardware on which I've had trouble installing linux in general is some older HP machines. Also, stay away from broadcom wireless cards...lots of problems there. I've found that intel chipsets work well.

    I hope I've made sense, and I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.
    Yeah, I can pretty much agree with this.

    I still don't see why the OP needs a second computer, though. Dual boot what you have.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •