Linux Server/Media Center

MidnightDistort

Distinguished
May 11, 2012
887
0
19,160
I've been trying to get a Linux server to run on my old '99 HP Pavilion 8650c: http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=bph05302&tmp_task=prodinfoCategory&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en&product=58772

I have tried Linux Puppy and Xubuntu, Puppy will work off the cd, but Xubuntu seems to be freezing during setup/installation. Though i haven't tried to do it again it doesn't seem to want to work properly around a certain area. Will post an update on that but anyway so i am trying to convert the '99 PC into some kind of server, something where i can utilize some older hard drives for media use like music/video. Later on i'll install a SATA adapter that will allow me to add some SATA hard drives as well. I don't plan to RAID the drives as there will be different types and i'd rather just replace the drives as they go out with the data i have stored elsewhere instead of buying or using newer drives as the PC will be running 24/7. Not to mention i tested all the drives using SpinRite and most checked out fine. I also will be putting in some fans as well, to keep the drives from overheating (as most likely there will be 3-5 drives in at a time).

For now i'll be using Windows 7 to access the PC/server and be able to use, transfer and/or edit info from the drives. If there's a better suggestion than Xubuntu that would be great, otherwise i'm going to try running it again and see if i can't at least get it working.
 
I use OpenELEC as my HTPC, but to be honest that machine is pretty damn ancient. Without hardware acceleration, 533MHZ and only 256MB RAM its pretty useless as a "media Center". File servering is doable, but without SATA and a modern harddrive, why bother?

Xubuntu likely requires too much memory to properly run in 256MB ram! Lilkely why it is freezing during install.

Puppy Linux, CrunchBang, Lubuntu or DSL may be able to run better with such low memory requirements
 
I've just read specs of your '99 PC: 533MHz Celeron, 64MB SD-RAM. I doubt any "modern" system will work properly (if at all) on such antique system. I would probably go with distro which is five-seven years old.

You can get old Ubuntu's from e.g. http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/
 


Terrible advise. Makes no sense. Please do not encourage people to use old depreceated software for no reason!

OP has already discovered that puppy linux runs just fine. Other modern lightweight distrobutions will run fine too.
 

What is wrong with installing old software on an isolated system? It will get infected from unpatched WinXP?
There are much better chances if he runs into a problem to get solution using something more "mainstream", even if it is five years old.

Half of the routers on the world run on 2.6 (even 2.4) kernel. So what?
 

MidnightDistort

Distinguished
May 11, 2012
887
0
19,160



Well, i am not storing any critical data, was hoping to try to get that desktop functioning well enough to stream my media files over to my other PCs which all will run a current Windows/Linux system. It won't have any problems running 3 or 4 hard drives (got an IDE/SATA adapter card on it).

And to clarify that desktop was upgraded to 256MB of RAM/physical memory. I also have a 1GB usb memory stick (if that helps at all...). So if that HP desktop is not worth doing, i could go with getting a box for hard drive/media streaming (if there is something like that).
 

stillblue

Honorable
Nov 30, 2012
1,163
0
11,660


Why would you limit yourself in the event that you may add hardware or change use by putting an older kernal that would gain you nothing?
More than enough said.

 

TRENDING THREADS