On 6/19/22 10:25 AM, Robert Heller wrote:

>
> Both Apple and M$ have a vested interest in people buying NEW computers on a
> regular basis -- Apple because they directly make money selling the computers
> and M$ indirectly through OEM License fees. Both companies stop support for
> older computers by EOL'ing their O/S versions and writing their new O/S
> versions not to work on older hardware. *Only Linux* continues to support
> older hardware with up-to-date OS versions. Yes, no one is doubting that older
> hardware is going to be slower, but for many use case, it will perform well
> enough.

Exactly. There's "well enough". If you want to play the
newest games, want all the eye-candy and more, then your
10-year-old box is NOT gonna manage that, even with Linux.

But "generally usable for most stuff", then Linux WILL
boost performance for free. The more you know how to
"tune" Linux, the more you can squeeze out of it on
old hardware.

I have old hardware - from Core2-Quads to Atoms to an
rPi-1-b (non+) and even a Core2-Duo - that, with Linux,
are still serving useful purposes. Why throw away what
WORKS ? Linux/BSD will let you stretch-out the lifetime
of that hardware. Hell, with an old Atom or C2-duo you
can run something like IPFire and have a wonderful
fully-empowered router/firewall vastly better than
any black box from WalMart. A C2-Duo is even strong
enough to run something like Kerio mail-server for
50+ biz users.

And as for memory-gobbling browsers, I know you CAN tweak
Firefox to make it far less greedy - yet still quite usable.
Buffer sizes & numbers .. check about:config .....

On 21/06/2022 05:48, 25.BX945 wrote:
> I have old hardware - from Core2-Quads to Atoms to an
>   rPi-1-b (non+) and even a Core2-Duo - that, with Linux,
>   are still serving useful purposes. Why throw away what
>   WORKS ? Linux/BSD will let you stretch-out the lifetime
>   of that hardware. Hell, with an old Atom or C2-duo you
>   can run something like IPFire and have a wonderful
>   fully-empowered router/firewall vastly better than
>   any black box from WalMart. A C2-Duo is even strong
>   enough to run something like Kerio mail-server for
>   50+ biz users.

We used to relegate our oldest hardware to running dns servers back in
the day, and once linux came along 386 Sxs ex desktop were repurposed
accordingly
lacing any x windows malarkey, they ran well enough on a couple of * MB
* of RAM..

--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker

On 6/21/22 6:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 21/06/2022 05:48, 25.BX945 wrote:
>> I have old hardware - from Core2-Quads to Atoms to an
>>    rPi-1-b (non+) and even a Core2-Duo - that, with Linux,
>>    are still serving useful purposes. Why throw away what
>>    WORKS ? Linux/BSD will let you stretch-out the lifetime
>>    of that hardware. Hell, with an old Atom or C2-duo you
>>    can run something like IPFire and have a wonderful
>>    fully-empowered router/firewall vastly better than
>>    any black box from WalMart. A C2-Duo is even strong
>>    enough to run something like Kerio mail-server for
>>    50+ biz users.
>
> We used to relegate our oldest hardware to running dns servers back in
> the day, and once linux came along 386 Sxs ex desktop were repurposed
> accordingly
> lacing any x windows malarkey, they ran well enough on a couple of * MB
> * of RAM..
>

Yep, Linux/BSD *can* work wonders ... within REASON
of course. There ARE useful roles for 'obsolete'
hardware. Why pay again ?

On 2022-06-22, 25.BX945 <25BZ495@nada.net> wrote:

> On 6/21/22 6:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 21/06/2022 05:48, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>
>>> I have old hardware - from Core2-Quads to Atoms to an
>>>    rPi-1-b (non+) and even a Core2-Duo - that, with Linux,
>>>    are still serving useful purposes. Why throw away what
>>>    WORKS ? Linux/BSD will let you stretch-out the lifetime
>>>    of that hardware. Hell, with an old Atom or C2-duo you
>>>    can run something like IPFire and have a wonderful
>>>    fully-empowered router/firewall vastly better than
>>>    any black box from WalMart. A C2-Duo is even strong
>>>    enough to run something like Kerio mail-server for
>>>    50+ biz users.
>>
>> We used to relegate our oldest hardware to running dns servers back in
>> the day, and once linux came along 386 Sxs ex desktop were repurposed
>> accordingly lacing any x windows malarkey, they ran well enough on a
>> couple of * MB * of RAM..
>
> Yep, Linux/BSD *can* work wonders ... within REASON
> of course. There ARE useful roles for 'obsolete'
> hardware. Why pay again ?

WARNING! You have committed blasphemy against The Economy.
Please step away from the keyboard and make no sudden moves.
A Consumer Re-Education squad will arrive shortly.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 6/22/22 12:23 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-06-22, 25.BX945 <25BZ495@nada.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/21/22 6:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/06/2022 05:48, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have old hardware - from Core2-Quads to Atoms to an
>>>>    rPi-1-b (non+) and even a Core2-Duo - that, with Linux,
>>>>    are still serving useful purposes. Why throw away what
>>>>    WORKS ? Linux/BSD will let you stretch-out the lifetime
>>>>    of that hardware. Hell, with an old Atom or C2-duo you
>>>>    can run something like IPFire and have a wonderful
>>>>    fully-empowered router/firewall vastly better than
>>>>    any black box from WalMart. A C2-Duo is even strong
>>>>    enough to run something like Kerio mail-server for
>>>>    50+ biz users.
>>>
>>> We used to relegate our oldest hardware to running dns servers back in
>>> the day, and once linux came along 386 Sxs ex desktop were repurposed
>>> accordingly lacing any x windows malarkey, they ran well enough on a
>>> couple of * MB * of RAM..
>>
>> Yep, Linux/BSD *can* work wonders ... within REASON
>> of course. There ARE useful roles for 'obsolete'
>> hardware. Why pay again ?
>
> WARNING! You have committed blasphemy against The Economy.
> Please step away from the keyboard and make no sudden moves.
> A Consumer Re-Education squad will arrive shortly.

Give Biden a chance and he WILL make it illegal to
use hardware more than five years old. He and Hunter
WILL get their kick-backs, of course ........

They'll CLAIM the old hardware is "energy inefficient"
and "insecure" and therefore MUST be replaced, often ...

Note Win-11 REQUIRING Gen-8 minimum plus a TPM "security"
chip. This on top of UEFI booting which stores who-knows-what
in that special little partition .........

And besides, the new hardware will have all the newest
spyware built right in.

Saw a news blurb today (UK I think, maybe BBC) that
said The State would now be keeping EXACT track of
almost ALL commercial transactions - "statistical
obligations" ya know ..... "profiles" built .....

When in question, When in Doubt, Follow the MONEY
and YOU'LL FIND OUT. (-me, so far as I know)

On 19/06/2022 02.33, Robert Heller wrote:
[...]
>>> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
>>> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
>>> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
>>> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
>>> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
>>> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
>>> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
>>> again with it.
>>
>> Do you really believe that Linux, magically,
>> will make things faster, better?
>>
>> A modern web browser alone will eat up all
>> the available RAM in few tabs...
>
> I've run Firefox with with like 6-8 windows (maybe as many as 10-12 tabs
> total) on a machine with only 2 Gig of RAM (still do [different machine]). I

Oh, come on!

Wasn't enough clear the example?

12 tabs with what? All with heavy javascript,
graphics, animations, videos?

And having also "libreoffice" with some large
document(s) open?

And... And... And...

The point is that the "desktop usage", or
"web browsing" means nothing.

If the system is slow with the current OS,
does not mean that Linux will make it
suddenly faster. By magic.

Clearly, one can strip down everything and
browse the web with "lynx" or "links" or
whatever is that.

Is this what the OP wants?

bye,

--

piergiorgio

At Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:25:15 +0200 Piergiorgio Sartor? <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> wrote:

>
> On 19/06/2022 02.33, Robert Heller wrote:
> [...]
> >>> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
> >>> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
> >>> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
> >>> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
> >>>
> >>> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
> >>> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
> >>> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
> >>> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
> >>> again with it.
> >>
> >> Do you really believe that Linux, magically,
> >> will make things faster, better?
> >>
> >> A modern web browser alone will eat up all
> >> the available RAM in few tabs...
> >
> > I've run Firefox with with like 6-8 windows (maybe as many as 10-12 tabs
> > total) on a machine with only 2 Gig of RAM (still do [different machine]). I
>
> Oh, come on!
>
> Wasn't enough clear the example?
>
> 12 tabs with what? All with heavy javascript,
> graphics, animations, videos?

Generally not videos, maybe animated ads (depends on what E-bay might be up
to). .

>
> And having also "libreoffice" with some large
> document(s) open?

I don't use LibrOffice... OTOH, I did use FreeCAD, KiCaD, and Fritzing on the
Lenovo with only 2G and these programs worked reasonably well, as did Gimp.
And I did do medium sized C++ compiles and non-trivial LaTeX runs.

>
> And... And... And...
>
> The point is that the "desktop usage", or
> "web browsing" means nothing.
>
> If the system is slow with the current OS,
> does not mean that Linux will make it
> suddenly faster. By magic.
>

I've only ever used Linux, so I have no clue as to how the machines(s) would
work with other O/Ss.

> Clearly, one can strip down everything and
> browse the web with "lynx" or "links" or
> whatever is that.
>
> Is this what the OP wants?

No clue. I was just describing my experience. OTOH, if he keeps he current
O/S, he is stuck with out-dated and unsupported O/S, which is probably bad.
He would be better (?) off with a modern up-to-date Linux system. Maybe not
super fast, but usable for basic web-browsing and light e-Mail.

The idea that one needs a zillion gig of RAM is as silly as the need for a car
< 2 years old. Many people drive cars 10 (or more) years old. The
"obsession" with getting a NEW computer every 2 years is insane. There are
lots of older machines that are quite usable for most use cases. Not, not so
good for heavy gaming or high end office work maybe, but certainly for use for
lightweight use cases.

>
> bye,
>

--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

On 19/06/2022 12:31, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:25:15 +0200 Piergiorgio Sartor? <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19/06/2022 02.33, Robert Heller wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
>>>>> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
>>>>> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
>>>>> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
>>>>> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
>>>>> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
>>>>> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
>>>>> again with it.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really believe that Linux, magically,
>>>> will make things faster, better?
>>>>
>>>> A modern web browser alone will eat up all
>>>> the available RAM in few tabs...
>>>
>>> I've run Firefox with with like 6-8 windows (maybe as many as 10-12 tabs
>>> total) on a machine with only 2 Gig of RAM (still do [different machine]). I
>>
>> Oh, come on!
>>
>> Wasn't enough clear the example?
>>
>> 12 tabs with what? All with heavy javascript,
>> graphics, animations, videos?
>
> Generally not videos, maybe animated ads (depends on what E-bay might be up
> to). .
>
>>
>> And having also "libreoffice" with some large
>> document(s) open?
>
> I don't use LibrOffice... OTOH, I did use FreeCAD, KiCaD, and Fritzing on the
> Lenovo with only 2G and these programs worked reasonably well, as did Gimp.
> And I did do medium sized C++ compiles and non-trivial LaTeX runs.
>
>>
>> And... And... And...
>>
>> The point is that the "desktop usage", or
>> "web browsing" means nothing.
>>
>> If the system is slow with the current OS,
>> does not mean that Linux will make it
>> suddenly faster. By magic.
>>
>
> I've only ever used Linux, so I have no clue as to how the machines(s) would
> work with other O/Ss.
>
>> Clearly, one can strip down everything and
>> browse the web with "lynx" or "links" or
>> whatever is that.
>>
>> Is this what the OP wants?
>
> No clue. I was just describing my experience. OTOH, if he keeps he current
> O/S, he is stuck with out-dated and unsupported O/S, which is probably bad.
> He would be better (?) off with a modern up-to-date Linux system. Maybe not
> super fast, but usable for basic web-browsing and light e-Mail.
>
> The idea that one needs a zillion gig of RAM is as silly as the need for a car
> < 2 years old. Many people drive cars 10 (or more) years old. The
> "obsession" with getting a NEW computer every 2 years is insane. There are
> lots of older machines that are quite usable for most use cases. Not, not so
> good for heavy gaming or high end office work maybe, but certainly for use for
> lightweight use cases.
>
>
The fact of the matter is that the only MINT installation that was
barely useable was on a notebook with less than 1GB RAM.

2GB is usable.

BUT the cost of upgrading to an SSD and 4GB is probably less than
$30...at which point its a totally new experience.

So its a question of value for money. Resale value of existing kit
approximately zero.

so for an opportunity cost of $30, you can get performance and build
quality that would cost $n00s

>
>>
>> bye,
>>
>

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 06:25:15 -0400, Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.removethis.de> wrote:
> If the system is slow with the current OS,
> does not mean that Linux will make it
> suddenly faster. By magic.
>
> Clearly, one can strip down everything and
> browse the web with "lynx" or "links" or
> whatever is that.

I've switched friends and relatives from windows to linux. Their systems
were not supported by new versions of windows.

While it's obviously not going to make the machine any faster, the reduction
in back ground tasks doing things like checking for malware, and much less
bloat, allowed doing things like running firefox or libreoffice without
swapping. With windows there was heavy swap usage for the same tasks, and
much slower disk access as every access is checked by malware scanners.

This is on 2GB ram, 10 to 15 year old systems.

I have them running kde as it as features they want, but have disabled things
like indexing all files on disk.

I've recently switched them over to using ssd drives instead of hard drives,
as I've done on my own systems. The difference is very impressive.

The system I use myself for personal use has a bios date of 10/16/2012.
Granted in this system I have a quad core instead of a dual core, and 16GB of ram
instead of 2, and have been using ssd drives for a while, I'm happy with it's
performance level.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

At Sun, 19 Jun 2022 13:49:42 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> On 19/06/2022 12:31, Robert Heller wrote:
> > At Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:25:15 +0200 Piergiorgio Sartor? <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 19/06/2022 02.33, Robert Heller wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>>> I have a 14 years old old MacBook Pro (15" A1260 model, unibody; 2.4 Ghz
> >>>>> Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB (667 MHz) of DDR2 SDRAM, 200 GB HDD, NVIDIA
> >>>>> GeForce 8600M GT (256 MB of VRAM), & Mac OS X (El Capitan v10.11.6))
> >>>>> from early 2008. Its software are too old, unsupported, and too slow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm thinking about replacing them with Linux, but which one would be
> >>>>> suitable for it? I still want basic GUI like web browsing. I remember
> >>>>> trying doing the same for an old PowerBook G4, but I couldn't get its
> >>>>> wifi to work with various Linux installations. I hope this won't happen
> >>>>> again with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you really believe that Linux, magically,
> >>>> will make things faster, better?
> >>>>
> >>>> A modern web browser alone will eat up all
> >>>> the available RAM in few tabs...
> >>>
> >>> I've run Firefox with with like 6-8 windows (maybe as many as 10-12 tabs
> >>> total) on a machine with only 2 Gig of RAM (still do [different machine]). I
> >>
> >> Oh, come on!
> >>
> >> Wasn't enough clear the example?
> >>
> >> 12 tabs with what? All with heavy javascript,
> >> graphics, animations, videos?
> >
> > Generally not videos, maybe animated ads (depends on what E-bay might be up
> > to). .
> >
> >>
> >> And having also "libreoffice" with some large
> >> document(s) open?
> >
> > I don't use LibrOffice... OTOH, I did use FreeCAD, KiCaD, and Fritzing on the
> > Lenovo with only 2G and these programs worked reasonably well, as did Gimp.
> > And I did do medium sized C++ compiles and non-trivial LaTeX runs.
> >
> >>
> >> And... And... And...
> >>
> >> The point is that the "desktop usage", or
> >> "web browsing" means nothing.
> >>
> >> If the system is slow with the current OS,
> >> does not mean that Linux will make it
> >> suddenly faster. By magic.
> >>
> >
> > I've only ever used Linux, so I have no clue as to how the machines(s) would
> > work with other O/Ss.
> >
> >> Clearly, one can strip down everything and
> >> browse the web with "lynx" or "links" or
> >> whatever is that.
> >>
> >> Is this what the OP wants?
> >
> > No clue. I was just describing my experience. OTOH, if he keeps he current
> > O/S, he is stuck with out-dated and unsupported O/S, which is probably bad.
> > He would be better (?) off with a modern up-to-date Linux system. Maybe not
> > super fast, but usable for basic web-browsing and light e-Mail.
> >
> > The idea that one needs a zillion gig of RAM is as silly as the need for a car
> > < 2 years old. Many people drive cars 10 (or more) years old. The
> > "obsession" with getting a NEW computer every 2 years is insane. There are
> > lots of older machines that are quite usable for most use cases. Not, not so
> > good for heavy gaming or high end office work maybe, but certainly for use for
> > lightweight use cases.
> >
> >
> The fact of the matter is that the only MINT installation that was
> barely useable was on a notebook with less than 1GB RAM.
>
> 2GB is usable.
>
> BUT the cost of upgrading to an SSD and 4GB is probably less than
> $30...at which point its a totally new experience.

It is uncertain that a *Mac*Book is (easily) upgradable -- Apple has been
notorious for making it hard to upgrade -- *Apple* has a vested interest in
selling new machines. 2GB is indeed usable, even with something like Ubuntu
18.04.

Both Apple and M$ have a vested interest in people buying NEW computers on a
regular basis -- Apple because they directly make money selling the computers
and M$ indirectly through OEM License fees. Both companies stop support for
older computers by EOL'ing their O/S versions and writing their new O/S
versions not to work on older hardware. *Only Linux* continues to support
older hardware with up-to-date OS versions. Yes, no one is doubting that older
hardware is going to be slower, but for many use cases, it will perform well
enough.

>
> So its a question of value for money. Resale value of existing kit
> approximately zero.
>
> so for an opportunity cost of $30, you can get performance and build
> quality that would cost $n00s
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> bye,
> >>
> >
>
>

--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

On 19/06/2022 15:25, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sun, 19 Jun 2022 13:49:42 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

>>
>> 2GB is usable.
>>
>> BUT the cost of upgrading to an SSD and 4GB is probably less than
>> $30...at which point its a totally new experience.
>
> It is uncertain that a *Mac*Book is (easily) upgradable -- Apple has been
> notorious for making it hard to upgrade -- *Apple* has a vested interest in
> selling new machines. 2GB is indeed usable, even with something like Ubuntu
> 18.04.

Thats why I checked online for upgrade kits for that actual laptop
before opening my mouth

Apple does not use non standard RAM or SSDS.

--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller