~Toughbooktalk~

kode-niner wrote:In my opinion, there still is no point to use a 32 bit OS even over the premise of not needing more than 4GB of RAM. It doesn't make the system work better. In fact, there are several advantages of using a 64 bit OS and applications other than just using more RAM.

I think it is important to consider which 64bit OS...From what I read, Some Linux flavors can run 64bit on 1gb of ram. The performance was "ok" Not any faster than 32bit..
In my personal experience, Windows can not.. Windows has a severe performance hit with 64bit and less than 6gb of ram..

In Windows world...NOT talking Linux or OSX in this paragraph...Microsoft has done a very good job of pushing the 64bit OS. Sadly on MANY new computers with 2gb of ram...As usual this is with zero concern for the customer......
Win 64bit needs 6gb to be equal to Win 32bit with 3gb...So the customer either has to spend more money to buy ram or live with a dog slow computer. When most customers have ZERO need for 64bit OS. Why not install 32bit OS and have a end product that is faster, less expensive and needs less hardware? Not to mention better drivers..
I compare it to buying a truck. I decide I need a truck so the only dealer in town sells me a 5 ton dump truck..He says,"Buy it. it's a great priceand the only truck you can buy here"...All I need or really wanted was a 1/2 ton pickup. But now with this 5 ton dump, I have a dog slow truck that uses twice the fuel. ...Maybe I should go to the next town, sell the 5 ton and get a 1/2 ton that better meets MY needs..

Haha, good analogy. Since we're talking about Linux, the old driver compatibility problems and overall performance issues don't apply any more as they might have ten years ago.

Another point I like to make is that, even though I might not need more than 4GB of RAM now, I don't want to be stuck re-formatting my system in case I suddenly develop the need in the future. It's like installing a 32 bit Linux is intentionally closing doors for absolutely no good reason. In this case, the 5 ton dump truck drives and handles the same as the 1/2 ton pickup, costs the same and has similar gas mileage... strangely enough.

Well I have some OLD Red Hat Install discs. It's old RH9 complete 3 disc install with extras for multimedia and office ect. Thinking about tossing that on a hdd and see where it takes me. Maybe one of the 51's or one of the 73's? Think it would update as it went?

Try this newest Debian version first: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=robolinux

Well I've done Robo and thought it was ok but the main reason that I am gonna try R/H9 is because I have ALL the discs here to do a complete and official install, where upon I can see where it goes from there. Will it allow me to fully upgrade and update the OS or not? To me R/H is linux's Wndoz.

My point is only that if you want to run Windows, either have an extra hard drive with caddy to run it, or run it inside Linux. They seem to have it down pat with the Vm "thingy" but maybe it's just hype. My CF-30 dvd drive is in RI, and I'm in NJ till next weekend, I was going to try it out and install a factory image inside the RoboLinux system. I don't need windows, but still like to tinker and see what's out there. I don't think installing an old and outdated distribution will suit your needs, especialy when there are many, many new distributions that work quite well on old toughbooks, and they can be updated and stay secure....keep us informed on your adventure.

Oh if I do a W install it is to a hdd. Usually a dual boot at that. Specifically because I don't trust W not to screw up. I have tinkered with sandboxing a system, but just haven't bothered. The reason I'm doing the RH install is just because I want to see what it will do. Heck If I really wanted a RH system I'd run Fedora.

It's kind of like why do I plan to try W10 after I finish this install of W8.1 on my CF-19 mk2? Because I want to see what happens.

I understand completely,
Best regards,
"tinker-ers_r_us"
on the 74 with MX-14.4

Ok the RedHat experiment tanked. Just couldn't get things to boot right. So did Watt R9 LXDE on the 52 and a Debain on the 19.

How is the new R9? They switched from Debian in R8 back to Ubuntu in R9 this time around.
Also, I have never been able to make a pure Debian install work, always had to use something like Makulu, MX-14, LMDE to get things up and running. Can you review what you did to get Debian working on your 19?
https://www.debian.org/