It looks as if even my PII is more modern than I thought, it is pae compatible, so it is not good for these particular tests.
I think I have another PC a gateway P5 120 buried deeper in the shelving system, however it is noted as 43MB ram and I do not know if I have any suitable to get up to 128MB ram, or even if that PC works. Will try. On 04/03/12 22:39, Greg Faith wrote: > That is correct another command that would show if pae or not > > sudo lshw -C processor > > If you see pae in the list it is pae compatible. > > nm_geo Greg > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 3:17 PM, alan c <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My PC (pentium II) >> ========================================================= >> grep pae /proc/cpuinfo >> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 mtrr pge mca >> cmov pse36 mmx fxsr up >> ========================================================= >> >> So it looks like it is pae compatible??! >> So I am testing a low resource machine, but it is pae compatible, correct? >> >> alan cocks >> >> On 04/03/12 21:51, alan c wrote: >> > (new team member here......) >> > >> > I had a Pentium II - 400 PC holding up some shelves (literally) and >> > heard the call for low spec PCS. >> > >> > Am I correct in thinking that the PII chipset will necessarily be non >> > pae? And is the objective of this sort of test that the Lubuntu kernel >> > is pae compatible, and does it work on the ancient PCs? >> > >> > My PII 400Mhz Pc was running Ubuntu 7.04 (and win 98) using 281MB RAM >> > total, and I reduced that to >> > 128MB (PC133, CL3) ram for the test. >> > >> > I used a 32 bit alternate CD Lubuntu beta1, and the CD self check in >> > the PC passed ok, verifying also the CD drive. >> > >> > I used manual directed install, continuing the PC existing >> > configuration as a dual boot with Windows 98. Wired ethernet. >> > >> > The install went quite normally as far as I could see. >> > >> > This install process took about 2 hours 10 minutes. >> > >> > The PC then booted ok, took just over 3 minutes to get to login >> > request and a further 5 or so minutes to show a completed desktop. >> > Subsequent startups might possibly go faster, I have not yet tried that. >> > >> > However, a very significant thing occurred soon after startup and this >> > was that, for a solid two and half hours, the PC was almost literally >> > un usable because of a constant activity. >> > >> > My guess is that it was maybe an indexing of updates status, I am not >> > sure. However, I managed to view task manager and for the whole of >> > this period the CPU as maxed at 100%, the memory indication was almost >> > constant at 109MB out of 116MB indicated, and the hard drive access >> > light was full on with obvious continuous hard drive activity. >> > >> > After the two and half hours it fell away and the quiescent values are >> > cpu 3%, memory 53MB of 116MB. >> > >> > A rapid and continuous movement of the mouse cursor takes the cpu up >> > to near 30% - this is the low resource machine speaking of course. >> > >> > What struck me was how impractical it would be to attempt an install >> > in this machine with any normal expectations of the post install >> > situation, or maybe other tasks also. >> > I have not yet attempted updates but it would sensibly be an overnight >> > job. >> > >> > I wonder if there is a way of reducing the priority of the update (? >> > if that is what it is) indexing here? Or maybe giving (me) some >> > control over when the indexing is to be done, or its priority. >> > Intuitively, the machine is not usable at this stage. So, many users >> > would simply write it off. I do not know if more ram will help, it is >> > something for later? >> > >> > I have not done further checks such as confirm that the swap partition >> > is in place and apparently normal, but the install configuration >> > seemed ok. Swap is (should be) 370MB. >> > >> > Summary so far: it does install ok, but the resources are totally >> > consumed for hours initially following install and re start. >> > >> > Other timings after the initial dust has settled: >> > >> > File manager appears in 13 seconds (cpu 100%) >> > web browser chrome 1 min 42 initial startup and 1 min subsequent. >> > Most of this time seems to be spent getting the Google sign up pages >> > ready, because the homepage (now set to www.google.co.uk) refreshes in >> > 6 seconds by itself. If Google encumber chrome browser with a >> > crapware sign up log in page, then in a PC like this is it a lead >> > balloon. Of course, maybe the user wants to sign in, but this is a low >> > resource PC and could be on a low speed network etc. (?) I dont know >> > how firefox runs in these conditions yet. >> > >> > I do not know enough about chrome browser to know yet how to make it >> > remember that I do *not* want to be asked to sign in. >> > >> > enough for tonight. >> > >> > More I hope anon. >> > >> > Comments please? >> >> >> -- >> alan cocks >> >> -- >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > -- alan cocks -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
