Linux failed to satisfy old PC Users

Some months ago, i wrote an article “3 Reasons why we shouldn’t use Linux“, after a lot of comments on the article in the favor of Linux, I thought i should also try Linux. So i downloaded Fedora 13. Then i made fedora 13 Live USB and boot my computer from USB, after boot fedora logo came and then system went on Standby. I thought that Linux was loading Files so i waited a long. After 10 to 15 minutes of wait, nothing happened, my system was on Standby, when i pressed power button, system turned off. I thought that was Fedora fault, then i downloaded Ubuntu 10.04, but i faced the same problem with Ubuntu.

I searched a lot on Google, then i found that it was because of Low Graphic Card and Linux Requires Higher Graphic Card. Only High Graphic Cards can Support Linux Frame Buffer, and if someone using Low Graphic Card then he/she will have to disable Linux Frame Buffer. Without Linux Frame Buffer the Graphics are not good, you cannot use high resolution i.e. only available resolution is 640×480.

Linux says “Linux is for everyone”, if Linux is for everyone so why Linux isn’t supporting My GX270 machine with 2.80 GHz and 1 GB DDR RAM? Windows XP, Vista and even Windows 7 works fine on my machine. New Linux is only for those peoples who has higher configuration Computers.

So isn’t it better to switch to Windows, because Windows is for everyone, even for Old Computers.

Share and Enjoy:


  1. johnmc says:

    Pleeeeze, take a breath.

    First of all I have run Linux fine on a Dell GX270 box, no problems. Two things to consider –

    * Did you look at the X configuration? The install might have selected the lowest setting due to some error.

    * You might also try a different distribution. Say PuppyLinux or maybe a live CD like Knoppix.

    “New Linux is only for those peoples who has higher configuration Computers.” however is a flat out error.

  2. Munish says:

    I am actually typing this from my Dell GX270 running Lucid. I have 1 GB of RAM and everything is smooth and I am running a high resolution as well on my Dell monitor. You may have to increase the amount of RAM available to you on board video card from the default of 1 MB to 8 MB. You can do this in the BIOS.

    I have a Pentium 233 with 256 MB RAM and a very old SiS video card and it runs Linux (Puppy Linux). So linux can be quite versatile :)

    Cheers. I hope it works out.

  3. patroclus says:

    I’m sorry: you wrote an article on “3 reasons we shouldn’t use linux” before you even tried it !!??? I guess the fact that you tried it afterwards and it failed on you is not even an excuse.

    Well, I’m sorry Linux didn’t work for you. I follow the same path (i.e. I gave a try to Linux) as you 4 years ago and I have (almost) never looked back. I’m now using Linux on all my computer and I am extremely satisfied with it. I guess your mileage may vary…

  4. crb3 says:

    I’ve got a laptop, 233MMX Pentium, 64M. It runs Damn Small Linux 4.10 just fine; rather spry, in fact, for hardware so old, and more reliable than the Win95 it replaced. It hooks into the Debian repos, so I installed my preferred programs for what I do with it — monitor ethernet segments, edit text, serial console, light browsing and troubleshooting.

    I’ve got a 1GHz HP Pavilion, 512M, I’m typing on it now, it runs MEPIS Linux 6.5 just fine; so do a couple of PIII 450MHz Asusteks with 256M. My E-Machines 1.8 GHz box with 512M runs MEPIS 8.0, works fine. My Dell 300 MHz box runs Slackware. My 233MHz file server runs Red Hat; so does my K6-2/400 network-control / times ‘n’ chimes / mail / Apache / Perl-playground server/workstation. Linux and older hardware get along just fine as long as you use some common sense.

    I suggest you head on over to and pull in a couple of troubleshooter / rescue distros to burn to CD-R; maybe the latest MEPIS ( too — I’ve found that to be a well-planned hassle-free distro. Use those to figure out where the problem is with the latest-and-greatest distros (are you sure you loaded that Live-USB right?), because that box has way more than the minimum resources to run a Live-CD. You know — do the tech.

    Or not, if you’re just looking for excuses to stay with Microsoft despite getting butt-hurt periodically by their shoddy stuff. Your call.

  5. Arup says:

    Yes, try running Windoze on an ancient P-III, turn those lovely aero effects on really and see it self destruct in ten minutes.

  6. Arup says:

    And in your case, you take the latest cutting edge distro made to run for relatively newer PCs, let me see you try and run Windows 7 on your old PC here. The general consensus is to run DSL or Puppy or Lubuntu on older PCs which you should have done but your main agenda is to put Linux down via your blog, its a free world so you have every right to do so.

  7. lefty.crupps says:

    Hilarious, the drivers didn’t work perfectly in live mode, for you, so therefore GNU/Linux fails to satisfy userS (plural)?! Now I have to go read your post on why not to use Linux when you admit in this post that you hadn’t even tried it.

    Ignorance can only get you so far. If you want to be Techy like your domain suggests, you have some work to do. Computers are complex, expect to have some work to do, always.

  8. revdjenk says:

    haaa haaa! I laughed that your original blog was about why not to use Linux, and that you hadn’t even tried it!
    Please take Arup’s suggestions for Linux versions to try*, or at least find someone else who actually runs Linux in your neighborhood to help you!

    God Bless

    *I would agree with Puppy and also suggest, Knoppix, which I had running on an even older GX110, back in 2001. In a few weeks, try LinuxMint’s lighter weight, LXDE version, when it is fully released.

  9. Ryan Peters says:

    Did you actually install Fedora, or did you only run it in LiveUSB mode? I’m pretty sure standby would work if you installed it. Your arguments are really… invalid.

  10. George HArmony says:

    I run Ubuntu 10.04 on a 500mhz pIII with 756 megs of ram and an old savage agp card. I installed it with absolutely no problems and it runs like a top as a gateway to the internet.

    You my friend probably have something wrong with your hardware rather then an issue with Linux. I have run many different live cd’s and have very little issues with any of them. Once in awhile I do have to do some research, just like I have to do with some windows installs to get them working properly on certain hardware. (have you tried to install win 7 on an nVidia2 motherboard. If two distro’s do not work on your hardware then it is probably a hardware issue not a software issue.

    Please get your facts straight and try to figure out what is wrong before you blame the Linux for your issues.

  11. Pierre Lemay says:

    After reading this article, I realised that my debian+LXDE installation on my P3, 256meg of ram, no cdrom Futjisu B2610 laptop might not be as good as Windows would be. So I decided to switch to Windows, as recommended. First I need to get Windows, where can I find a Windows install USB drive? I don’t have a cdrom on this machine. Oh wait, I just check, this machine cannot boot on a USB! And I don’t even have a floppy drive. So the only ways to install are 1) take the hd out and install on another computer than switch the hs back. Can that be done with Windows? Legaly? 2) or do an network install from PXE? Again, can that be done legaly with Windows? Finally, this machine probably cannot use better than Windows 2K, where can I find a legal copy of it?

    What are high and low graphic cards? Do you mean “high end” like my “ATI 3D Rage II” I use in my server? ;-)

    Joke apart, why do you care enough about Linux to bash or even lie about it?

  12. FreeBooteR says:

    So how much were you paid to write this ***?

    [Comment Edited]

  13. Ryan says:

    You expected it to be Windows. It’s not. It’s Linux. It won’t do things like Windows does. Even most drivers for the system are written pretty much trial and error “does this work, no. does this” sort of thing. Most hardware only has to work with Windows. Of course it may take a little work for it to work with Linux. I’ve even had to figure out a work around for a sound card, one that even gives me issues under Windows, that works perfect under Linux.
    No. Linux is not for everyone. But, if you like to have fine-tuned control of how your system operates, then take the time to at least play with it. Don’t give up with one driver issue. ***************. Or, at least play with it in VirtualBox. Don’t just say “No one should use Linux” cause I can rebute Windows and Mac with the same phrase.

    [Comment Edited]

  14. hector says:

    Why you didn’t try light-weight distributions like Tinycore, Slitaz, Lubuntu, Damn Small Linux, Unity Linux, VectorLinux, crunchbag, etc, etc, etc, etc?

    They run for sure from a liveCD or a USB.

    You may have installed both fedora and ubuntu. Fedora has the option of running the graphical installer on a remote pc using vnc when it can not stay in the ram and ubuntu has a special installation disk for the same case: ubuntu-alternate.

  15. hrm says:

    You do not need the framebuffer for pretty graphics on Linux. Also, are you aware your blog is hosted on a Linux server?

    [Comment Edited]

  16. PBhat says:

    Please do not be turned off by the vehemence underlying some of the replies.I cannot guess what options you turned on or the specific BIOS settings which are normally designed to work with Windows.Many BIOSes do not really follow relevant standards and have some quirks.When Windows is installed,you run drivers which tailor the windows for Motherboards it runs on.But when Linux runs and expects standards based behaviour and if BIOS has quirks, Linux does not get the response it expects.

    That said, I tell you all the distributions you mention run perfectly on my Acer laptop which has a 1.6 Ghz celeron M with 1 GB RAM.For your kind information,even the latest Ubuntu,Opensuse manage to run on my home PC with only 466 MHz celeron and 256 MB RAM.They expectedly are not a breeze there,but manage to run with full resolution.

    I suspect a BIOS quirk in your system or a Linux-unfriendly BIOS setting.Please take some help to find it.With your specifications, you should be able to run most modern Linux without a problem.I am sorry for others’ comments.

  17. Rich_C says:

    Linux runs on anything from super computers to the lowliest embedded device. To get a Linux distro to run on a lower powered/old machine, choose the right distro and if you run into difficulties ask for help on that distro’s forum. To get it right, you need to choose the right distro with the right community support for you. This may take a few attempts, distro hopping as it’s called.

    All the best.


  18. mb says:

    So Vista runs fine out of the box with no tweaks? on this old pc?

  19. rkk says:

    will you run crappy windows OS and the flashy cpu cycles consuming games on such a cpu? Go and run windows 98/windows ME/windows XP/windows vista or the recent crap windows 7 on such older cpu. while there are lean and mean linux distros available such as DSL, puppy or tiny core linux why did you try fedora 13 or ubuntu 10.04? don’t you think that you are too ***** & don’t wanna spend little money to upgrade the old pc to run modern linux OS? why you blame linux? why you didn’t try windows vists/windows7 and blame crappy microsoft OS?

    [Comment Edited]

  20. rkk says:

    so you tried windows. why bother running linux. have your windows on old pc and be virus drome and enjoy it with yourself and spread the virus to all other windows systems in this world.

  21. zenarcher says:

    Here’s yet another example for you. I went to install Windows XP on an old HP Pavilion desktop computer the other day for a family member. Started the Windows install, only to receive the BSOD during the install, telling me that in order to install Windows XP, I would be required to update the BIOS, as it did not support the Windows XP install. (The old HP had been shipped with Windows 98). I visited the HP website to locate drivers for the system. There, I was met with a note telling me that drivers for Windows 98 were the latest available for that old computer.

    Oh, Kubuntu 10.04 installed without a problem whatsoever. So, Windows failed to satisfy this old PC user.

    Try software before you write articles recommending against using it. And, read a bit about doing an text based alternate install. Linux installs quickly enough that you don’t need fancy changing little graphics to entertain you during the install process.

  22. Jon says:

    I have run Linux on many different older machines and have never had that problem. I decided to give Linux a try a few years back and never look back to Windows. Windows has become quite a hassle to maintain will all the Mal-ware and junk, also I don’t like that fact that with every new release of Windows the consumer loses more freedom and privacy. The NSA helped the Windows 7 development, many Privacy expert voiced ‘backdoor’ concerns. At any rate if you are interested in trying Linux you may want to look through If you are using an older system, either install a lightweight distro such as DSL, or Puppy Linux, or install a lightweight Desktop Environment such as Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment (LXDE), Xfce, or Fluxbox.

    Ubuntu is user friendly, but in my opinion I feel Linux Mint is more user-friendly so you may want to give that a try. In order to experience the full potential of Linux, you need to install it and run it.

  23. rochelito dagpin says:

    had i read the header right? “Tutorials and much more”

  24. wmk says:

    I really enjoyed this post. Haven’t laughed so much in a long time. “Techbirdy”!

  25. … Go to an inner city library.
    Pick up a book on Linux (try to get one from within the last two years).
    Read the introductory chapter to get your bearings.
    Boot the CD/DVD that goes with it.
    Spend a good fortnight with Linux.

    Once you have done this repeat the process with on of the BSD operating
    systems, again with Syllable and one final time with Plan9.

    Once you have taken all of the above you can start making comments on the worth of operating systems.

  26. pedro says:

    I do understand your disappointment. You tried, it failed and now what… I can just assure you that your machine can run Fedora or other Linux distribution. Try to go to, be polite, ask your question and someone will most probably help you out.

  27. Silvery Corgan says:

    I can’t believe it. 3 reasons why we shouldn’t use Linux and you haven’t even tried it.

    As for this post … I simply don’t understand your need of running a bleeding edge distribution on an old PC. You should give Ubuntu a try. If still unsatisfied … try OpenSUSE. But trust me … those guys at Canonical did a great job with their latest release (10.04 Lucid Lynx). I am running it on a AMD Sempron 3GHz, 768 MB RAM, ATi Radeon 9600 XT (It’s old enough, trust me) and an old ASUS motherboard and it works just fine. If I try to install WinXP … It won’t install (gets stuck while installing or gives BSOD before the installation stars). Vista is out of the question and Win7 is S.L.O.W. I really like those effects on linux … and I can use them. They totally beat the crap out of Windows Aero. Also … If I disable all effects on Win7 and just use the classic theme … my computer will look like those old computers from Win98 Era and it won’t even work fast enough (and yes I had BSODs on Win7 too). Instead I have Ubuntu 10.04 and it looks like 2010 and it is faster than Win7. Did I ever mention how fast it boots? Well … I think you should see that yourself. Give Ubuntu a try by installing it inside Windows (like a program with next->next->next->). If you like it then install it side by side (dual boot). If not then you can simply uninstall it like a program from Win.
    Next time think before you act and comment after you act, not before.

  28. David says:

    Try Mint, at work all the 270 that are replaced run mint and they work fine…

  29. poutsoklis says:

    i like linux. i like windows.
    i don’t like biased opinions. choose the appropriate tool for each task.
    e.g. if you were a developer you would prefer the linux ecosystem. if you were a gamer then windows would be your choice. the common denominator is porn. it adopts to each ecosystem, since it drives the IT/entertainment/ industry.
    after all, it’s a free world full of options.

  30. Timmorn says:

    The fact that you didn’t even say WHAT graphics card you have that does not work out of the box says much about you…

    Because you didn’t bother to write it I had to research on my own that your PC has an “Integrated Intel Extreme® Graphics 2″ chip.
    As far as I understand it this should be supported by i810 which should be in xf86-video-intel.

    Am I right when I suppose that you can’t provide any further information because you didn’t bother to get Linux REALLY running?

  31. Wanda Round says:

    That’s odd. My GX270 runs the sidux flavor of Debian Linux just fine.

    Do you mind sharing the exact specs of the machine so we can figure out what to watch for in the future?

  32. Dioxcyn says:

    have you updated your bios?


    please advise where i can get my legal free microsoft windows 7 for everyone.

    please ensure it comes with legal free microsoft office 2010 for everyone.
    (not the web version please – need the standalone)

    i want to try it on various machines.

    ps i see windows 7 worked well out of the box for you
    you only had to “make” a custom video driver for it lol

  33. macias says:

    I am Linux user and I prefer installing Linux on other people computers because it is easier for me to manage Linux than Windows.

    However, when you are on your own, Windows has flatter learning curve, i.e. it is easier to use Windows. Unless you are a geek.

    So, I totally understand you and agree with you — there are things better in life than figuring out why mouse is not working, or how to configure dual monitors. Computer (and OS) is _just_ a tool, not a some kind of deity which deserves long nights of preaching. Turn on, get the job done, turn off. With such workflow Linux fails.

  34. Antero says:

    Computer with Nvidia Geforce 6600, 1 GB RAM, 5 different Linux-distros working fine (Ubuntu 10.04, Linux Mint 9, Mandriva 2010 KDE, PCLOS 2010 KDE and Fedora 13. I’ve had never problems with my graphic card. Friend of mine has quite the same machine and he has had serious problems with Windows Vista.

    This post is either **** or ***. He managed to avoid the fact that you need 2 GB RAM to run Windows 7 (32-bit) and even 4 GB for 64-bit. Running Windows 7 with 1 GB RAM is nightmary, i know it.

    [Comment Edited]

  35. You have to use the right tool for the right job; you have pretty old hardware? then use the distro that better suits that hardware, distros like Puppy Linux, Damn Small Linux, or Slitaz in extreme cases.

    You wouln’t plow a field driving a Lexus with a shovel attached to the front, right? no, you would use a special machine for that. This is the same.

    Wow. I just realized that there is much better Linux content in your ads than in your post. Next time invest a little more time in your “research”, or at least, do a heavy revision of your “testing methodology”.

    Lastly: I run OpenSUSE 11.2 in a old AMD Ahtlon XP 1800+ 1.53 Ghz with 1GB RAM with no issues, everything works; an Aspire One with an Atom 1.6Ghz with 512MB RAM and 8GB SSD, with Ubuntu Netbook Remix 10.04, and again, no problems. And the jewel of the crown is a very old PC with an AMD CPU (don’t remember model) at 1.1Ghz Mhz with 256 MB, with Linux Mint 8, and guess what? again no problems at all; and the best is that this PC (with Mint) is used by my brother, who confuses a computer with a microwave oven easily. Also, I have a dozen VM’s with several other distros. And no, I’m not a Linux zealot either; my best machine is a quad-core, tons of RAM and other resources, with Windows 7 64-bit, wich I love also, and this version of Windows wouldn’t run


    of my old computers. Maybe even wiring them together and sharing all their resources woulnd’t be enough for W764. ;)

  36. Innocent Bystander says:

    I have installed Ubuntu on a dozen of machines older than your Dell GX270. They are Pentium 3. They all work OK, although may be slow when there are several tasks.

    You didn’t try hard enough. You stumbled on the 1st obstacle, gave up and said that Linux is not good for old machines !??! Quite the contrary, Linux is the only distro that is friendly with old machines.

    Don’t tell me XP is better. It’s true that it might boot and run faster a few days or a month if you are lucky. After that, well you know that well. The machine will either collapse under a bunch of Anti-XXX tools or the opposite an overload of virus and spyware.

  37. Richard Chapman says:

    This is just like the old days. Oh, how I miss them… *Not*. The premise is about people using Linux but then the reviewer begins by attempting to *INSTALL* Linux. Either go back to your Linux flunkies and ask them how “easy” Microsoft’s Windows is after attempting to install it. Or. Give them a computer with the operating system pre-installed (You know, like the way they’ve always purchased them?) but in this case it’s Linux and then see how easy/difficult it is.

    The only way you could possibly measure ease of use would be to get a large group of people who have never used a personal computer, divide them into two groups and then get them started. One group with Windows, one group with Linux. When the results are in you will be able to say: These people found operating system X difficult/easy. However, they do not speak for the rest of the World.

    I thought the era of “I tried Linux and thought it sucked so it won’t be any good for the rest of the world either.” was over. Anyway, it was kind of nice taking a ride in the Wayback machine.

  38. SL says:

    How did you burn the iso? If you let it burn at max rate, you may have made a faulty install disk. Slow it down as much as possible…4x or 8x at most. Be sure to follow all the instructions for burning your CD. These live CDs are highly compressed and don’t do well at high burn rates. I run TinyMe Linux 2010 with beautiful graphics and quick browsing on a 12 year old compaq laptop with an AMD k6-2-433 processor with 192 M.

  39. Jack says:

    I had a computer with Ubuntu that’s from around 1996 with an extremely poor graphics card. In Windows I could only reach up to 800 x 600 resolution. With Linux, it shot up to 1280 x 1024 if desired (which didn’t look good on the old monitor, but it was possible).

    In my experience, Linux provides more functionality on older computers. However, I wouldn’t suggest running something like compiz on a computer that old- I would opt for e17- blazing fast and full of appealing visual effects, without the need for compositing hardware.

  40. kb0hae says:

    Linux works fine on my laptop. Its an HP pavilion ze1230, with a 1.3 gig AMD Athelon processor, 256 meg of ram (16 meg used for video ram), and a 20 gig hard drive. Most likely your video was not properly detected. I see that you have gotten many comments about how you are wrong about Linux only working on “high configuration” machines. I am sure you will get many more. *********************************** While Linux is not for everyone, most people would get along fine with it if they gave it a fair trial and spent as much time learning it as they did when they first learned to use Windows!!

    [Comment Edited]

  41. Carling says:

    Your 3 reasons for not running linux
    1) Companies running on donations
    The companies which are making Linux Distributions are running on donation.For Example if all the peoples started using Linux Will this increase the income of companies which are making Linux? off course not because their income depends on donations instead of sale of their OS.But If more and more Peoples use windows then off course the income of Microsoft will increase and they will hire more experienced engineers and will make windows more easier.

    My reply, to your first ****** reason.

    Lets take for prime examples the worlds largest IT Companies making billions that DON”T come from donations, Google, Intel, Ibm Red Hat Linux, just to mention the well known ones, that employ millions of people worldwide,

    2) Too many distributions, will they survive?
    This is a very important question.As i have already mentioned that all the companies which are making Linux are running on donations.If they receive limited donation it will be very difficult for the companies to keep status of these distributions alive. So why to have a risk that will you receive updates or not for your OS’s in future.Try a paid OS today and omit this tension from your mind.

    My reply, to your second ****** reason
    If Linux come to an end the world would stop the minute that happed “Why,” No Internet, No telecommunications No TV, No Financial stock market, Linux is keeping the world going, Through Linux Trillions of people are employed in embedded equipment manufacture, in development,

    3) Difficult to understand
    If you compare Linux with any other OS like Windows or Mac OS you will find that Linux is too much difficult than other OS’s.For Example If you want to install a software in Windows or Mac OS you can do this by running a simple installer but if you want to install a software in Linux you will have to install it from a source.

    My reply, to your second ****** reason
    Linux is easier to install than windows or Mac OS/x is. It is easier to use, the trouble with you is you can only think one way, the MS zombie way, one that can’t think for yourself, Education is a wonderful thing, try it some time, last but not least If MS was to go toes up, it would not be missed, the world would survive and be a better safer pace without it,

    [Comment Edited]

  42. Olivierz says:

    “Linux failed to satisfy old PC Users!
    This is a bold statement :) considering the users consist only of you according to your article.

    I find that Linux does help with the Dell machines, as I have had to reinstall numerous Dell machines for work, having lost all the drivers cd’s. Oh what fun that is!

    Ubuntu (and Linux is not just Ubuntu) runs fine on all these machines.

    You had the right idea creating a live-usb disk, they are easier than those boot cd’s.

    As I saw in a previous post, increase the memory of the video card in the Bios from 1 to 8. This will help.

    You will probably not be able to run Fedora or Ubuntu on full settings, but I doubt that Vista or 7 would either. There is a limit to what an OS can do with an older hardware.

    If your last experience has not killed off you interest in Linux, try this OS on your Dell – it is beautiful and runs on REALLLY ancient hardware!!! Linux Mint OS LXDE –

    Good luck with whichever OS you chose, even if it is back to Windows ;)

  43. tango says:

    I think the writer is saying the average person will not tolerate such an OS. Case in point. A friend of mine bought a Ubuntu magazine which includes the OS DVD from B&N. He booted his computer with the Ubuntu DVD and could not see anything. So he called me, and after on the phone with him for nearly two hours and internet connections. *********************** … Maybe in 3 more years Linux distro creator will realized that it just gotta work…

    [Comment Edited]

  44. panman says:

    Dear Techbirdy,
    I have to admit that I am really commiserating you about your troubles, but at the same time I am surprised that after this post was here for already four days and a big bunch of people wrote you their opinion and gave you so many examples, you do not even bother to reply. Do you you made the effort to read the comments? Did you ever tried to follow the advices the people here gave you?
    If I were you, I would delete this post, also the post with the three reasons why you would not use Linux. Both posts ********** , I am sorry.
    Linux is different from Windows, no doubt. You did not use Linux before, but you were not born as a Windows user as well, right? It needs some efforts to learn how to deal with any operating system. So, just give it a try, just as you did with Windows. It will take some time, but the effort worths – you will have a new experience. And I assure you – after a month or so you will love this system. I don’t say you would never think about Windows, but you will see that it is not the only one in this world that worths attention.

    [Comment Edited]

  45. pseudonomous says:

    You know what, ********:

    The framebuffer is only used for console graphics. That’s that the thing with text-only that kind of looks like DOS. It’s quite possible your graphics card does not support high resolution console graphics, some graphics cards/drivers don’t because many people don’t care that much.

    The windowed environment used on linux and other unix-like operating systems is called Xwindows (also X11, and the particular implementation used is Xorg, see for more info). This has it’s own drivers and operates more or less independently of the framebuffer. The problems you are having are with Xorg, not with the framebuffer. You may be screwing up things by trying to set console resolution high in the framebuffer, if this is what you tried, because recent changes in the kernel have caused the legacy method of setting framebuffer resolution to conflict with Xorg’s graphics drivers, so don’t do it (this should only affect ATI, intel, and Nvidia graphics cards).

    It’s quite likely, however, that your problems are instead related to improper auto detection of your graphics card and/or monitors capabilities. It’s also possible that your monitor uses a strange resolution that is not supported by the VESA driver (VESA is basically the lowest common denominator amongst all recent video cards, it’s the successor to the VGA and SVGA standards). In the event that you use a distro that doesn’t ship with any driver besides VESA for the graphics card you have, if your monitor only supports a strange resolution not covered by the VESA standard, Xwindows won’t work.

    This probably isn’t the case because your computer has an intel graphics card and it’s a desktop, so you must be using a monitor, it’s usually laptop’s that have funny, non-VESA displays.

    Basically, what you want to do is either blindly try other linux distros as posters above have suggested, or figure out what kind of graphics hardware and display you have, then see if you can figure out why it’s not working. It may be easiest to install a console-only system and then install Xorg later, on many P4 or earlier era computers, I began having to do this around 2008, my computers just wouldn’t load modern live CDs anymore.

    Anyway’s, I doubt you care enough to take my advice, but I think it’s important to clear up some of the mis-information presented in your blog, namely, blaming the framebuffer, when your problem is in fact with Xorg.

    You know what? I even looked up your computers specs (since they were easy to find), it’s got an intel i865 graphics chipset, and your issues are most likely caused with Intel’s most recent graphics drivers for Xorg not properly supporting your chipset. Probably what you want to do is either disable KMS and use intel’s legacy, non-kms drivers, in the mean time, you will probably be able to get by using the VESA driver. Your computer should be just fine running ANY linux distro that provides the legacy intel graphics drivers. Or you can just use a distro that still ships with these drivers by default, such as Debian or CentOS. (Which are, unfortunately, a bit behind in the times in terms of much of the other software they provide as well, as well as not being particularly user-friendly). Or you can use VESA, which will likely provide you with a reasonably high-resolution display, with minimal work on your part, in exchange for sacrificing any hardware acceleration.

    Actually, on further reading, it turns out that alot of people who were having trouble with their GX270′s had some minor hardware issues, that don’t seem to cause trouble while running windows, but consistently cause linux installations to fail (I have seen similar behavior on my own computers, as well, though I was able to succeed in running X11 on them after very careful tweaking of the config files; they ran much better after I replaced the flaky graphics card), many posters, however, do report successfully installing linux on a GX270… anyways, good luck, if you decide to put further effort into installing linux on your computer, otherwise, but please at least update your blog to reflect the proper issues with your computer.

    Also please make it clear that the issue is not “low graphics card”, I have used both a 12 year old cirrus logic card (admittedly this only ran at 800×600 with 8-bit color) and an ati rage-128 pci graphics card on machines running modern linux distros, with minimal effort on my part.

    [Comment Edited]

  46. admin says:

    I didn’t reply because of lots of comments.
    I tried to run linux a lot and after a lot of searching and reading the comments, entering command “vga=normal nomodeset” in the Ubuntu 10.04 boot worked for me, but the available resolution was 800×600 and graphics was not good.

  47. panman says:

    @ admin says:
    June 15, 2010 at 6:52 am
    Well, maybe finally post the model of your graphics card. I am sure that if not I, someone else would be able to help. The other solution would be to google ubutnu in combination with your graphics card model.

  48. JC says:

    Please, please… I didn’t read ever comments here, but I’m writing from an old toshiba with 96Mo of RAM, a 266MHz CPU with a VGA 2MB GPU. It used to run windows 95 that is not supported anymore by Microsoft for years ! I put debian on it : well, I didn’t use the eye candy installer but it’s ncurse equivalent. Well, there was no fancy windows, using the accelerated 2D capacities of my GC for it has none.

    But the installation was perfectly clear and I was able to boot on an xfce desktop just one hour after. I’m happy with that : I’ve got an up-to-date system, I can run midori for the internet without a problem.

  49. Anonymous says:

    I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I have a Pentium 4 and Intel 82915 Express Chipset Family and I can use framebuffer and 1280×1024 – 75Hz all day long with no problems and I have with several distributions.
    See that picture on the right side of Knoppix with framebuffer? I’ve done that with several distributions at 1024×768 with a Pentium 4 and Intel 82915 Express Chipset Family! What are you talking about!?
    I can use Compiz with maximum effects or anything else all day, also, with my hardware with no problems whatsoever… I normally don’t but it’s just because I like a simple desktop. Requiring more than a GX270 is absolute confusion.

  50. Anonymous says:

    I should also point out that I also have 1 GB of RAM…

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.