Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

MasterM1nd · 2014-12-23 20:22:09

Hi,

I'm new on this forum (Just signed up). I have been using windows from start but some months ago (may be 5-6), I started taking interest in Linux. I tried to test on my old PC (Pentium 4, specs given below) because I wanted to dual boot with windows xp and any linux. I chose Linux Mint. It was good, runs fine but some time it becomes laggy (specially when surfing on the internet etc).

After It, I tried to use Fedora. Fedora was slow too. In between I also downloaded Kali Linux (Penetration Testing OS), but didn't installed it. Just tested it through Live usb.

Some days ago, I downloaded Ubuntu (The latest version) and It was damn slow during installation. Mouse was running smooth but due to unity (Ubuntu uses) it was very slow and unfortunately something happened to my bootloader (maybe I did something wrong). I tried my best to boot into Ubuntu but failed :3. I knew that it was so slow during installation, it will remain like that.

Then (yesterday) I downloaded puppy linux. I have to say it's fast but ugly . I am running it through LIVE USB. It's fast but I don't like it...

Suddenly (now) Arch linux came into my mind, I searched on the forum to know that it can run on my old system or not and founded many people are using it on their old systems.

My pentium 4 specifications:

Ram: 2GB
HDD: 160GB (80GB taken by windows XP, rest will be used by Linux)
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4CPU 2.8Ghz
Video memory: 64MB

Can I use Arch Linux (Dual boot with windows XP) on it? Will it gonna cause any problem due to 64 MB video memory. Because mostly all the linux I have tried (Ubuntu/Fedora/Mint) was slow due to video memory {I think}.
If my Pc can then you can give link to dual boot it. Also please tell me which version of Arch linx will run better (32 BITS)

I'm also not very good in linux but after trying for several months I have at least learnt some basics (not sure )

Waiting for reply!

Thank You,
MM

Last edited by MasterM1nd (2014-12-23 20:24:18)

loafer · 2014-12-23 20:43:59

Yes, you can use it. How it performs will depend a lot on how it is set up and configured and the applications installed etc.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/be … quirements

Trilby · 2014-12-23 20:52:50

These threads make me laugh ... and cry.

Your "old hardware" is much better than my best and main machine. Arch will run just fine on that. Don't bother with 32 bit - use x86_64.

EDIT: oops I lied. I have done some upgrades to this since I got it. But still very comparable to my daily machine, and much better than another one that I use archlinux on.

drcouzelis · 2014-12-23 20:55:27

Hi.

MasterM1nd wrote:

Can I use Arch Linux (Dual boot with windows XP) on it? Will it gonna cause any problem due to 64 MB video memory. Because mostly all the linux I have tried (Ubuntu/Fedora/Mint) was slow due to video memory {I think}.
If my Pc can then you can give link to dual boot it. Also please tell me which version of Arch linx will run better (32 BITS)

Yes, your computer will run Arch Linux.

~~Your processor does not support 64 bit applications, so only Arch Linux 32 bit will work.~~ Oops! According to Trilby, you can use either architecture.

I don't think having 64 MB of video memory is what's causing the other operating systems to be slow. Instead, just running lots of applications is making it slow. With Arch Linux, you only install what you want to install and you only run what you want to run. Because of that, Arch Linux will feel much faster.

Other than that, it all depends on what applications you run. You can install the window manager that is used in Puppy Linux (JWM) which will be blazingly fast. You can install the desktop environment from Linux Mint (Cinnamon) which will run more slowly. Arch Linux will be as fast or as slow as the software you install.

Last edited by drcouzelis (2014-12-23 20:56:59)

Trilby · 2014-12-23 20:57:18

drcouzelis wrote:

Your processor does not support 64 bit applications, so only Arch Linux 32 bit will work.

Did I miss something? What makes you say that? Wikipedia says it's 64-bit.

EDIT: actually as I'm fact checking, another page says x86_64 started with Pentium 4, but is phrases it as "some newer pentium 4". But it's worth a try in either case: the installation iso has both architectures, and if your processor doesn't support 64-bit you wouldn't be able to boot that one anyway.

Last edited by Trilby (2014-12-23 20:59:29)

MasterM1nd · 2014-12-23 21:17:37

loafer wrote:

Yes, you can use it. How it performs will depend a lot on how it is set up and configured and the applications installed etc.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/be … quirements

Hmmm Thank You! ^^ Gonna download ARCH

Trilby wrote:

These threads make me laugh ... and cry.
Your "old hardware" is much better than my best and main machine. Arch will run just fine on that. Don't bother with 32 bit - use x86_64.
EDIT: oops I lied. I have done some upgrades to this since I got it. But still very comparable to my daily machine, and much better than another one that I use archlinux on.

What if I say that I still use this old hardware more than the new

drcouzelis wrote:

Hi
Yes, your computer will run Arch Linux.
Your processor does not support 64 bit applications, so only Arch Linux 32 bit will work. Oops! According to Trilby, you can use either architecture.
I don't think having 64 MB of video memory is what's causing the other operating systems to be slow. Instead, just running lots of applications is making it slow. With Arch Linux, you only install what you want to install and you only run what you want to run. Because of that, Arch Linux will feel much faster.
Other than that, it all depends on what applications you run. You can install the window manager that is used in Puppy Linux (JWM) which will be blazingly fast. You can install the desktop environment from Linux Mint (Cinnamon) which will run more slowly. Arch Linux will be as fast or as slow as the software you install.

I'll download 32 bits, If it's 64 bit. It will run 32bit too so why take risks
Well I'm not sure but according to me graphics are causing it because a 64MB can't handle unity 3d (used in UBUNTU).
And I was not aware that it's up to us that what we would like to install on ARCH. Thanks for telling , But what's the default? JVM or desktop environment in ARCH Linux?

Trilby wrote:

Did I miss something? What makes you say that? Wikipedia says it's 64-bit.
EDIT: actually as I'm fact checking, another page says x86_64 started with Pentium 4, but is phrases it as "some newer pentium 4". But it's worth a try in either case: the installation iso has both architectures, and if your processor doesn't support 64-bit you wouldn't be able to boot that one anyway.

Well I'm not gonna take risk . If it's 64 bit, It will be able to run 32 bit. SO

I hope the installation process + partitioning will be same like other distros ? Does ARCH have a boot loader? Means it will create automatically or I've to do it manually (haven't done it before).

Last edited by MasterM1nd (2014-12-23 21:19:07)

karol · 2014-12-23 21:21:18

MasterM1nd wrote:

I hope the installation process + partitioning will be same like other distros ? Does ARCH have a boot loader? Means it will create automatically or I've to do it manually (haven't done it before).

No need to guess and hope, just read the wiki.

ewaller · 2014-12-23 21:23:04

For some more general advice, stay away from the big desktop environments (kde, Gnome, or even xfce4). Try something light like Openbox or i3. Aside from your memory, that machine is a lot more capable than my laptop. I have, and use, 4GB

graysky · 2014-12-23 21:25:49

Been happily running Arch on a pair of Athlon XPs that are over a decade old now.

alphaniner · 2014-12-23 21:27:11

Trilby wrote:

Your "old hardware" is much better than my best and main machine.

That's 'cause you spend all your money on replacement parts and mead.

ewaller · 2014-12-23 21:43:02

Perhaps he, like me, disdains a "throw away" culture?

lucke · 2014-12-23 22:12:40

I'd stick to 32 bits, as they eat less memory.

Trilby · 2014-12-23 22:12:40

A bit of both. I don't like to see good equipment be thrown away (who am I kidding, I love seeing other people throw it away!). But my mead budget could pay for a fancy new machine.

qinohe · 2014-12-23 22:29:25

[offtopic]

ewaller wrote:

Perhaps he, like me, disdains a "throw away" culture?

Trowing away things that work is bad of course, but still using old shit is not good either.
The 'old pentium 4' uses an amount of energy per year, you can buy a new pc from.
[/offtopic]

@MasterM1nd, welcome to Arch.
My first machine on Arch was a compaq laptop 266Mhz 128Mb, only 3 years back.
That machine of yours will be good enough, for many more years.

Soukyuu · 2014-12-25 11:38:25

ewaller wrote:

For some more general advice, stay away from the big desktop environments (kde, Gnome, or even xfce4). Try something light like Openbox or i3. Aside from your memory, that machine is a lot more capable than my laptop. I have, and use, 4GB

I'm running kde4 on a Zacate based (netbook-grade CPU) with 4 GB without any issues and it "only" eats about 800MB of RAM with two users and some programs (doplhin, skype, qbittorrent, filezilla) running. Without akonadi (akonadi-fake from aur) the usage is even lower.

A freshly installed win8.1 on the same machine was eating about 1.7GB according to its task manager (in active use, cache not counted), so compared to windows, any linux DE should be more efficient. Yes, openbox/i3 use even less, but kde's memory usage is not as bad as it's usually made out to be. Unless you install and run a lot of crap instead of keeping it clean.

That said, I agree it might not be the best choice for older machines.

helix · 2014-12-25 20:46:44

Lol, one of my laptops has a Pentium III processor and 512 MB of RAM and runs Arch very well considering the age of the machine (12 or 13 years).

MasterM1nd · 2014-12-26 14:24:10

Everyone thank you for your tips!
I have installed it but a problem occur . See my thread in Installation section: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1487570

:'(

DaRipper91 · 2025-05-07 11:49:00

The amount of useless information that is in parentheses is not needed in this situation. We use Arch by the way.

Lone_Wolf · 2025-05-07 12:00:54

You did notice this thread is 10+ years old ?

Please don't necro-bump .

Closing this old thread.

Arch Linux

#1 2014-12-23 20:22:09

Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#2 2014-12-23 20:43:59

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#3 2014-12-23 20:52:50

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#4 2014-12-23 20:55:27

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#5 2014-12-23 20:57:18

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#6 2014-12-23 21:17:37

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#7 2014-12-23 21:21:18

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#8 2014-12-23 21:23:04

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#9 2014-12-23 21:25:49

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#10 2014-12-23 21:27:11

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#11 2014-12-23 21:43:02

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#12 2014-12-23 22:12:40

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#13 2014-12-23 22:12:40

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#14 2014-12-23 22:29:25

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#15 2014-12-25 11:38:25

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#16 2014-12-25 20:46:44

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#17 2014-12-26 14:24:10

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#18 2025-05-07 11:49:00

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

#19 2025-05-07 12:00:54

Re: Should I choose Arch for my old pc?

Board footer