I do on my laptop, not because it's an old machine just because it's
less resource hungry (working on the basis that less thinking time =
more battery time).
All the apps are minimalist and non bloated - using abiword and
gnumeric instead of open office, mousepad instead of gedit or kate.
The only thing that will bog you down is if you decide to use 'big'
packages like Gimp, OpenOffice etc...

Xubuntu should be okay for an old machine you can always try out the
live CD before commiting to an install.

I use xubuntu on an old dell laptop
D600 - while it isn't a 486, xubuntu should
be able to run fine i would think...

test it out with the Live CD option first i would suggest...

It will run on a 486 but it must have at least 32 Mb of RAM....
An alternative is installing icewm from synaptic. It requires less resources.

while on vacation I am reading "A Practical Gudie to
Ubuntu Linux" and it talked about Xubuntu for older systems. I have a
older system that I would like to try it on. Looking for any comments
on those that are using Xubuntu, likes/dislikes, suggestions.

Right now i'm using xubuntu as my operating system. It's similar to
ubuntu. Even you can use the ubuntu repository to updated your xubuntu
system. Because xubuntu is using xfce for window manager is fast to load
even with p3 system.

I'm using Hardy Heron 8.4 on my old heap and its only a 700ghz but does
have 516mb RAM .

I've been using Xubuntu on an old Dell
D600 Laptop for a few years now (since 6.06 version).

I tried other distros, and they seemed just
"too heavy" - Xubuntu performs really well -
on my laptop, with intel centrino processor,
768 mg Ram, 40 gig HD.

The xfce desktop, combined with Thunar file manager
is fast because it's lighter on memory requirements.
For even more responsiveness,
you can install ICEWM or Fluxbox and customize it by editing
specific text-files.

Likes:
Responds well on older hardware.
Synaptic pkg manager (just like other `buntus`)
Hardware detection quite good -including the wi-fi (I
did not need NDISWRAPPER -one less thing that I "had" to do.
-your mileage may vary, as this experience may not apply to all.

Dislikes:
With the 8.04 version of Xubuntu, the Network Configuration GUI
acts really flaky and I'm about to dump it.
If you are using wifi, I suggest Wifi Radar, or KWifiManager.

It's not easy (or maybe I've missed something) to have
separate background colors/pictures for each desktop.
A minor nuisance if you like to have diff bg colors for
different desktops. Xubuntu has all of your desktops
as the same photo (if you've set a photo) or same
background color or background art.

While the hardware detection is great, it didn't pick
up on the onboard video of the laptop and it
offers only a few video resolution choices. Not all
of them are bad, but I need to invest time to get
and install some ATI drivers. Again, minor,
since the Windows XP install (it's a dual-boot) didn't
either, I had to install it from a driver CD.


Overall, it's a good distro and I like it. It's fast,
highly-customizable, and is updated on the Ubuntu
schedule, with a highly-active user community.

I'm running Ubuntu 8.04 on an old IBM Thinkpad 600x. That's a
500mhz processor with 256 meg of ram. I can't believe that it
installed. I had to use the alternate install with the previous versions.
Needless to say, it runs a bit slow. I thought I'd try Xubuntu to
see if it'd pep up a bit. I went to Synaptic and typed in Xubuntu and
it downloaded and installed: Ubufox, Xubuntu Artwork &
Upsplash, Xubuntu-at-mag, Xubuntu-defualt-settings, Xubuntu-desktop,
Xubuntu-docs and Xubuntu-restricted-extras.
All of this shows to be installed now, but everything looks and
runs the same as before? How would I tell if it's now running Xubuntu
or tell it too? It does show the new splash screen, but that's just a
picture I think.

At the login window you can change session and a menu comes up and you
choose which desktop. Personally i think you'd be better off to do a
fresh install of xubuntu and run that alone as you may have some
resources being used by ubuntu. Xubuntu should happily run on that
spec of machine... i'm just about to give it a run on a 300hz/256mb
pc.

I'm running Xubuntu on a IBM600e with an 400mhz CPU,& 196 ram, Sound
doesn't work, but everything else works including wireless card.

Thanks that worked fine.......

Good... it takes while to find one's way around. It took me quite a
while testing and experimenting. I'd still recommend that you run
Xubuntu or Ubuntu rather than two desktop environments - i tried
xubuntu again recently on my spare ubuntu machine and something went
amiss resulting in me reoving xubuntu. I'm just sticking to ubuntu
now... never liked KDE.

I recently switched from KDE back to Ubuntu also. Runs much smoother.

I gathered from an article i read recently [and can't remember where
now!]; Ubuntu is the professional version that Canonical try and push,
Xubuntu and Kubuntu are the volunteer versions that the community
develop [sure they are quite good but they are not as polished as
ubuntu]. I don't know why gnome is chosen but i imagine it is because
it is a little more straightforward to develop than KDE. It seems that
a distro is either gnome or KDE and developed along that route e.g.
suse is a lovely KDE interface and not bad for gnome but they
definitely develop down the KDE route, similarly with PCLOS.

I tried a few distros and returned to Ubuntu (i didn't actually leave
it!), and despite a few glitches now and again, i will stick with
ubuntu for the better package management, smoothness and reliability
of the application.

I never liked KDE either i tried it several times didn't like at all , my best
config so far is, Ubuntu and compic fusion. It Rocks!!! i like that
combination really well.
i got this one set to 4 desktops and can switch on the fly to one or the other.
it beats windows xp hands down. just my comment to you all thanks again for a
great Product.

Ubuntu is not a professional product that Canonical is pushing. Ubuntu is the
flagship project, but the other *buntus are also staffed in the same way. there
is a mixture of paid staff and volunteers in all projects. They are separate in
that they can set their own terms within the framework and philosophy of the
parent company, Canonical.

Commercial or enterprise solutions are being pushed, not at the expense of the
projects, but to increase usability and Linux penetration. Canonical is a small
player compared to Novell and Red Hat and is just getting into the market.
Recently it was certified by Sun Microsystems as being suitable for installation
on their servers. This was a big step, but Canonical has a long way to go.
Previously, they reached an agreement with Dell for Ubuntu to being
pre-installed on some computers. The strategy is not to raid the user base of
other distros, but to improve Linux and its wider application on the desktop and
on servers.

They have steadfastly resisted overtures from Microsoft to enter into an
agreement because the believe that M$'s claims are bogus and any agreement is
unnecessary. They are charting their own course and most Linux users like their
approach. some users though are either purists or jealous of success. They
criticize the *buntus for trying to walk the line between usability and using
only FOSS. Canonicals' solution is to not include restricted drivers by default,
but to allow users to decide. They also offer Gobuntu which uses only FOSS.
Users from the PCLOS camp are particularly harsh and like to trumpet their OS's
use of codecs and restricted drivers out of the box as if it is stupid to do
anything else and they routinely rag on about how good their OS is for doing
something that Canonical could do but won't due to philosophy. They target
Ubuntu because it took away the lead that PCLOS once had on Distrowatch. Petty
and annoying users, but a good distro
(PCLOS) if you like RPM (I don't).

To date Canonical is not making a profit. Any revenue generated goes back into
the projects and shortfalls are topped up by Mark Shuttlworth, to the tune of 8
million dollars per year. There are lots of near slanderous stories from other
distros backers who are spreading FUD in order to prop up their own distros.
Some target Ubuntu because it is the front runner. Others see it as a threat by
siphoning off users and a few are just mean spirited.

Be careful what you read and check the facts before you spread gossip and
innuendo.

"Be careful what you read and check the facts before you spread gossip
and innuendo."

Thank you for your post - if what you said was true fair enough.
However, i did say "i gathered..." in my previous post which was
partly the result of a long discusion on IRC ubuntu-uk. You criticised
and then substantiated on a several points i made and then finished up
with the above quote. I don't know how you can say Canonical is a
small player compared with Redhat and Suse when worldwide ubuntu
occupies the #1 slot. My experience of suse was that the sold version
works fine but the download iso has problems by comparison. e.g. my
ethernet connection continually seemed to fail in suse and yet not one
problem on ubuntu - same pc. Ubuntu philosophy is for free use and yet
the two distros you mentioned are hardly free... if you want a trouble
free version.

I didn't say anything detrimental to ubuntu - gnome does appear to be
more polished and have less problems than the other two versions
that's all. That is what many users find. Personally i find the
package management is vastly superior to the rpm distros from what i
and many other newer linux users find. Hence why so many stick to
ubuntu. I see quite clearly why other distros target ubuntu.

It is great to have choice! Gnome rocks for some and KDE for others. Then there
are many other window managers out there. Try Elive or gOS with Enlightenment or
the eeePC with Icewm and you will see that the alternatives are great, too.

Red Hat only does servers. No desktop Linux at all. They use Fedora to test on
and keep the most stable stuff for the server market. Novell does both, servers
and desktop. They also market Suse as an enterprise solution.

Canonical is a small player because there is no money in desktop Linux and most
of what they do is for the desktop. Novell with Suse and Red Hat are better
positioned because they own most of the server and enterprise market already.
Canonical is hoping to break through, but it is a tough market to crack as
business is slow to adopt and don't like to mix OSes in order to keep it simple
and consistent. Most of Canonical's revenue comes from selling support.

When you read stats about Ubuntu's dominance, just remember that they have come
from nothing to this position in four years. They started as a desktop Linux
with one flavor and have branched out. To most people they think of desktop
Linux when they hear Ubuntu and when they hear Red Hat they think servers. When
they think of Novell they think of enterprise Linux.

They still lose money on Linux. Money is there to be made, but you need to prove
yourself first. IT experts will not bolt from the Red Hat or Novell stable
unless they have good reason to. What many users see as a benefit with the six
month new releases, scares IT people off of Ubuntu.