Gaming Need A Lightweight OS

[WildWon]

I'm building a media server for my tv. I have a P4 1.6ghz (i think) w/ 512 megs ram & 64meg graphics card (pimp'd out!).

What i want to do-

Use it for:

• Media for TV (movies/shows/music)
• Web for TV (hulu/netflix/youtube... maybe flash games)
• Torrent Box
• Video Game Center (loading it with all oldschool emus up to MAME {up to around MK3, cps2 and all neogeo, but no 3d or CHD games))
• Game Server (for Minecraft and maybe Diablo or some games like that.)

So, will XP work out all right? I ask because i have an extra copy, and it's easier on the sys than 7.

Or is there a lighter version of Linux that will allow all that and be an even lighter load?

(i'm wanting to do everything listed above, so if a distro you recommend wouldn't allow me to do one of those things, don't recommend it. i know XP can do all this for me, just looking for other possibilities

)

Thanks guys!

 

[leinad]

XP would be the better choice.
Flash is a k.o. argument for linux, it works, but it's horribly ported. Things that run supersmooth on windows may lag horribly on linux.

 

[popoffka]

You should definitely use Linux.
I can suggest you to try Damn Small Linux or Puppy Linux or some other lightweight distro, there're a lot of them on the internet.

 

[Rydian]

Windows 2000? =D

 

[MFDC12]

i second xp. especially if use use nlite

linux is good and all but even with wine/its offshoots its still not meant for gaming. yeah you can dual boot but still

and as leinad said, flash still has a few problems in linux, but its really dependent on hw/setup

 

[how_do_i_do_that]

XP or Ubuntu will work. The more exoctic the video file, the more likely it will be XP since they usually require XP only codecs.

 

[gameboy13]

Ubuntu is really light. I've used it myself.

 

[Rydian]

Ubuntu is really light. I've used it myself.

Maybe back in 2004, but not now. I use Xubuntu, which uses XFCE instead of gnome, I'm on specs a good chunk higher than in the OP (Athlon XP 2800+, 2GB RAM) and it's performance is just-noticeably worse than XP's.

Windows 2000 would be my real suggestion for a media/emulator OS, except this computer will eb acting as a server, and 2K hasn't had security updates in ages.

 

[MFDC12]

Ubuntu is really light. I've used it myself.

Maybe back in 2004, but not now. I use Xubuntu, which uses XFCE instead of gnome, I'm on specs a good chunk higher than in the OP (Athlon XP 2800+, 2GB RAM) and it's performance is just-noticeably worse than XP's.

Windows 2000 would be my real suggestion for a media/emulator OS, except this computer will eb acting as a server, and 2K hasn't had security updates in ages.

agreed, ubuntu isnt really lightweight.

good lightweight distros:
debian (it runs better on my older computer as opposed to ubuntu which ran slow)
damn small linux (debian-based)
slax (slackware based, its noticeably much easier to use than slackware though)
slackware is really fun to use, but can be annoying. stable, and simplistic. the os itself does not check for dependencies when installing programs which can be the annoying part. there are however 3rd party tools for that though. it ran fantastic on a 233 mhz pentium 1, about a year or two ago, with fluxbox

 

[_Chaz_]

DOS

Doesn't get much lighter unless your PC is this:

 

[Originality]

I've not used it since early school days, but what about Unix? If I remember, it's the OS behind the UI of Linux. If it isn't being used all the time, it doesn't really need the UI, does it?

 

[MFDC12]

I've not used it since early school days, but what about Unix? If I remember, it's the OS behind the UI of Linux. If it isn't being used all the time, it doesn't really need the UI, does it?

unix is actually proprietary, linux is basically a free version of it (open source as well). the linux kernel is not the unix kernel, though.

the bsds (open, free, net, etc) are more closer to unix, though (its was actually considered a branch of unix)

 

[Rydian]

Linux is POSIX-compliant so it could be called a UNIX... If somebody would step up and pay the couple-thousand-dollar-a-year or whatever fee it is for the certification.

But nobody's going to bother, so it can't be called a UNIX... instead it's just "UNIX-like".

 

[sprogurt]

linux lxde or xubuntu.

 

[trumpet-205]

Linux is POSIX-compliant so it could be called a UNIX... If somebody would step up and pay the couple-thousand-dollar-a-year or whatever fee it is for the certification.

But nobody's going to bother, so it can't be called a UNIX... instead it's just "UNIX-like".

They call it Unix-like because of the famous lawsuit against Linux.

@OP: Use Debian with LXDE or Xfce should be lightweight enough. Avoid Ubuntu as it is somewhat bloated.

 

[Rydian]

Linux is POSIX-compliant so it could be called a UNIX... If somebody would step up and pay the couple-thousand-dollar-a-year or whatever fee it is for the certification.

But nobody's going to bother, so it can't be called a UNIX... instead it's just "UNIX-like".

They call it Unix-like because of the famous lawsuit against Linux.

No, they call it "UNIX-like" because being called a UNIX requires a certification process that costs money.
http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/the_brand.html
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/docs/faq.html#general21
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/Brandfees.htm

OSX 10.5 is UNIX-certified, Linux is not.
The difference is somebody coughing up a lot of cash.

 

[Am0s]

arch linux is also light weight and wine does a hell of alot more these days as it did a few years ago, also what doesn't work well in wine cxgames picks up, although it costs money you can download a dodgy copy of it *cough* cough*

 

[trumpet-205]

arch linux is also light weight and wine does a hell of alot more these days as it did a few years ago, also what doesn't work well in wine cxgames picks up, although it costs money you can download a dodgy copy of it *cough* cough*

Problem is that OP wants to build a server. Arch is using rolling release, making it not suitable for server.

 

[WildWon]

Thanks, guys, for the input. As i've gathered it, it looks like XP will be my best bet, just due to support for what i want to do.
(i honestly didn't know if there was a better option or not, as i've been out of the Linux scene for far too long)

I'll be setting that beast up, and loading up
This: http://www.team-mediaportal.com/
for all of my front end work (heh, even specifically has listed about emulators and browser launch from the front-end, along with all my media stuffs... not to mention tons of user-gen'd addons)

I'll end up posting my results (probably in a picture-based "look what i did!" kind of thread).

Again, thanks, and

 

[Tokiopop]

BackTrack.