For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with 48 MB RAM?
raylopez99
and 500 replies later, I think I'm ready to close this topic.
I am looking for a Linux distro to test on an old PC that has the
following specs. BTW it's running Windows 2000 fine (very slow), and
that says something if you cannot find a Linux distro to do the same.
Since the PC doesn't have much RAM, it takes 10 minutes to bootup, and
you can't load too many programs at the same time, but it does work.
Processor: Pentium II, 133 MHz clock, 48 MB RAM (yes, fourty-eight),
two HDs, one, the C: master drive, is a Seagate 1.275 GB drive and the
D: drive slave is a 3.224 GB (Seagate ST3xxxx series).
Floppy drive and CD-ROM reader only.
PS/2 Keyboard and USB mouse. Cheap $15 video card. BIOS is "Award
Modular v. 4.51PG" from the mid 1990s.
So, I tried to run "Arch" Linux (some others specifically did not load
when I put the .ISO bootable CDs in the drive) and did get (unlike the
others, including Vector, though I don't think I tried Slax), a prompt
"GNU Grob 0.92" (command prompt). Grob, like the bizarre chess
opening the Grob Attack, 1.g4.
What is this?
More specifically, is there *any* Linux distro that will work with
such puny RAM? I am skeptical.
All advice "welcome", I guess, though I suspect I'll get flamed.
Oh, for you conspiracy nuts that think I'm just a troll who makes up
stuff, this machine is different from the other target machine of the
prior six (6) threads on this topic--this is just my old machine in
mothballs that I'm ready to trash but want to test Linux on it.
You don't think I would trust a non-Windows OS with new hardware do
you? That would be foolish.
RL
Phil Da Lick!
<snip shite>
Thank fsck for that. Can we have that ("*LAST* time" in writing?
You've had your answer over and over and over and over again now fsck
off. Or do your own fscking research. Either is fine.
Douglas Mayne
> Ok, this is my last post on this subject. Seventh time's the charm
> and 500 replies later, I think I'm ready to close this topic.
>
> I am looking for a Linux distro to test on an old PC that has the
> following specs. BTW it's running Windows 2000 fine (very slow), and
> that says something if you cannot find a Linux distro to do the same.
> Since the PC doesn't have much RAM, it takes 10 minutes to bootup, and
> you can't load too many programs at the same time, but it does work.
>
That is if you call that "working." Users I know would not accept a 10
minute boot time.
>
> Processor: Pentium II, 133 MHz clock, 48 MB RAM
<snip>
>
It might work as a file server, router board, or some such application.
AFAIK, your only hope is Damn Small Linux.
Personally, I don't the patience when better junk is on the market.
Coincidentally, I was at university surplus property yesterday and saw
that the Pentium III's like the one I bought in May are all gone. Now,
they only some AMD 850MHz systems for $30, some Pentium 4 systems for
$80, some PPC Macs for $80, and some "lamp base" Macs for $130. Only a
masochist would think that any Pentium Pro/II was comparable to any of
these "junk" systems. BTW, are you saying that your Pentium II runs at 2 x
133 = 266 MHz? That could be possible, but AFAIK, no Pentium II had a
clock that slow. Pentium, yes. Pentium II, no. If you have a Pentium at
133MHz (very common), then you will need even more patience. Toss it.
--
Douglas Mayne
William Poaster
<quote>
raylopez99 wrote:
Well, as a chess player, thinking one more move ahead, I wonder--does
that mean we Linux bashers are *pro-Linux*?
<unquote>
Self admitted "linux basher" wants help. Dopez99 is a stupid troll.
The Ghost In The Machine
<raylo...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
<d2bf3dbb-daa8-41e8...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
> Ok, this is my last post on this subject. Seventh time's the charm
> and 500 replies later, I think I'm ready to close this topic.
>
> I am looking for a Linux distro to test on an old PC that has the
> following specs. BTW it's running Windows 2000 fine (very slow), and
> that says something if you cannot find a Linux distro to do the same.
Oh no, we can find *plenty* of Linux distros that will
run *very* slow on an old PC with only 48 MB RAM.
;-)
Of course, those are the ones with huge .... amounts of GUI.
Something light using Xfce might work reasonably well.
Or one can go with no GUI at all. I've had Linux running
on a 4 MB 386, though admittedly that was quite some time
back, and Debian has bloated itself (if one can call 14
MB bloated, compared to a certain competitor's 2048 MB)
since then.
> Since the PC doesn't have much RAM, it takes 10 minutes to bootup, and
> you can't load too many programs at the same time, but it does work.
No, it shouldn't take 10 minutes for a Windows machine to
boot up (even that relic); your friend's machine is most
likely infected.
Not that it matters, if you're going to slick it.
>
> Processor: Pentium II, 133 MHz clock, 48 MB RAM (yes, fourty-eight),
> two HDs, one, the C: master drive, is a Seagate 1.275 GB drive and the
> D: drive slave is a 3.224 GB (Seagate ST3xxxx series).
>
> Floppy drive and CD-ROM reader only.
5 1/4" or 3 1/2"? :-)
>
> PS/2 Keyboard and USB mouse. Cheap $15 video card.
Cheap, non-specific, totally undocumented video card.
And you expect us to do something intelligent?
To be fair, xorg gets the basics right on most video cards,
but don't expect to get GL working first try without a *lot*
more info.
> BIOS is "Award
> Modular v. 4.51PG" from the mid 1990s.
Not all that relevant.
>
> So, I tried to run "Arch" Linux (some others specifically did not load
> when I put the .ISO bootable CDs in the drive) and did get (unlike the
> others, including Vector, though I don't think I tried Slax), a prompt
> "GNU Grob 0.92" (command prompt). Grob, like the bizarre chess
> opening the Grob Attack, 1.g4.
>
> What is this?
>
> More specifically, is there *any* Linux distro that will work with
> such puny RAM? I am skeptical.
Nope, none at all. You'll have to get more RAM or reinstall Win2k.
I'd suggest 2 GB; you'll want Vista on that.
(Or not.)
:-P
>
> All advice "welcome", I guess, though I suspect I'll get flamed.
Well, since you've only posted this 9 times before and didn't like any
of the answers....
>
> Oh, for you conspiracy nuts that think I'm just a troll who makes up
> stuff, this machine is different from the other target machine of the
> prior six (6) threads on this topic--this is just my old machine in
> mothballs that I'm ready to trash but want to test Linux on it.
Ah, OK. Not that it matters; the other machine had a little more oomph.
Your next machine should be a 386/20 4 MB board. (It would
be 8 MB but SIPs are apparently nonexistent nowadays.)
I think I can put a Trident on there, or maybe a 6845
(640 x 200 or 320 x 200 x 4, woo, colorful). I'd have
to hunt up an IDE controller now.
C'mon. You know you want to ask.
>
> You don't think I would trust a non-Windows OS with new hardware do
> you? That would be foolish.
You're right. Trust it with Vista instead.
>
> RL
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Baho Utot
> Ok, this is my last post on this subject.
Thank you
--
Tayo'y mga Pinoy
Baho Utot
[putolin]
>> Processor: Pentium II, 133 MHz clock, 48 MB RAM (yes, fourty-eight),
>> two HDs, one, the C: master drive, is a Seagate 1.275 GB drive and the
>> D: drive slave is a 3.224 GB (Seagate ST3xxxx series).
>>
>> Floppy drive and CD-ROM reader only.
>
> 5 1/4" or 3 1/2"? :-)
>>
No 8"
Charlie Gibbs
raylo...@yahoo.com (raylopez99) writes:
> I am looking for a Linux distro to test on an old PC that has the
> following specs. BTW it's running Windows 2000 fine (very slow), and
> that says something if you cannot find a Linux distro to do the same.
> Since the PC doesn't have much RAM, it takes 10 minutes to bootup, and
> you can't load too many programs at the same time, but it does work.
>
> Processor: Pentium II, 133 MHz clock, 48 MB RAM (yes, fourty-eight),
> two HDs, one, the C: master drive, is a Seagate 1.275 GB drive and the
> D: drive slave is a 3.224 GB (Seagate ST3xxxx series).
>
> Floppy drive and CD-ROM reader only.
Up until recently I was doing lots of productive work on a laptop
with almost exactly the same specs: P133, 48MB RAM, 1.3GB hard drive.
In fact, it was my first Linux box; I loaded the CD I got with a
book (Slackware 3.5, kernel 2.0.34) onto it and was able to include
everything. Later I moved up to Slack 7 (kernel 2.2.13) - I had to
omit some of the more obscure packages, but I was compiling Linux
versions of my production software and even running X (fvwm). I
shoved in a PCMCIA NIC and presto, it came up on my LAN. It's still
tucked into a corner, and if I have the need I'm sure I could bring
it up and use it for something...
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
google01103
<snip>
> RL
would you just go away already, learn to use Google
--
Suse 11.0 x64, Kde 4.1beta (factory repo), Opera 9.x weekly
Luuk
> raylopez99 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> RL
> would you just go away already, learn to use Google
;)
--
Luuk
raylopez99
> Personally, I don't the patience when better junk is on the market.
> Coincidentally, I was at university surplus property yesterday and saw
> that the Pentium III's like the one I bought in May are all gone. Now,
> they only some AMD 850MHz systems for $30, some Pentium 4 systems for
> $80, some PPC Macs for $80, and some "lamp base" Macs for $130. Only a
> masochist would think that any Pentium Pro/II was comparable to any of
> these "junk" systems. BTW, are you saying that your Pentium II runs at 2 x
> 133 = 266 MHz? That could be possible, but AFAIK, no Pentium II had a
> clock that slow. Pentium, yes. Pentium II, no. If you have a Pentium at
> 133MHz (very common), then you will need even more patience. Toss it.
>
Thanks Doug. I appreciate your input and learned a bit. Yes, this
system *is* already tossed, it's just that I want to experiment with
seeing if it will load Linux, if I can configure Linux for a dialup
modem, and, maybe, if I can get Linux to recognize a larger disk
(40GB) though the BIOS is old. On this last point, somebody says it's
doubtful Linux will do that, so best to get a new controller card. My
objective is not for this machine but for the target machine, which is
a Pentium II - 200 MHZ (not my machine, but a friend's).
I always assumed this PC was a Pentium II, but, after your post, I see
it may be (based on this chart:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pentium#Models) be a Pentium "P54CS". I'll be darned--the guy that
sold it to me said it was a Pentium II I remember. Oh well, I did get
useful work out of it, so I can't complain.
Do you really think this Pentium will run DSL? If so, I can download
it and find out. Like I say, it would only be for fun, to experiment,
since effectively it's already been tossed (but, much to my surprise,
when I revived it, and it hasn't even been turned on for over two
years, and then only to see if it still worked, I found yesterday the
clock is still accurate to within 12 minutes! The clock chip must
have had a great crystal in it, to keep time that accurately).
RL
raylopez99
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
> Oh no, we can find *plenty* of Linux distros that will
> run *very* slow on an old PC with only 48 MB RAM.
Today Ghost? Or yesteryear? If today, please mention some (other
than DSL, which I know about, or confirm DSL might work).
>
> No, it shouldn't take 10 minutes for a Windows machine to
> boot up (even that relic); your friend's machine is most
> likely infected.
>
No, it's not infected and I didn't time it, but it seemed like 10
minutes.
> > PS/2 Keyboard and USB mouse. Cheap $15 video card.
>
> Cheap, non-specific, totally undocumented video card.
> And you expect us to do something intelligent?
I have another decent ATI video card that I got for $50 and never
used, so if the video card is a problem I can swap it out.
> > More specifically, is there *any* Linux distro that will work with
> > such puny RAM? I am skeptical.
>
> Nope, none at all. You'll have to get more RAM or reinstall Win2k.
> I'd suggest 2 GB; you'll want Vista on that.
>
AHa! For a minute I thought you were serious.
> > Oh, for you conspiracy nuts that think I'm just a troll who makes up
> > stuff, this machine is different from the other target machine of the
> > prior six (6) threads on this topic--this is just my old machine in
> > mothballs that I'm ready to trash but want to test Linux on it.
>
> Ah, OK. Not that it matters; the other machine had a little more oomph.
>
> Your next machine should be a 386/20 4 MB board. (It would
> be 8 MB but SIPs are apparently nonexistent nowadays.)
> I think I can put a Trident on there, or maybe a 6845
> (640 x 200 or 320 x 200 x 4, woo, colorful). I'd have
> to hunt up an IDE controller now.
>
> C'mon. You know you want to ask.
>
Linux on the original 8088--that would be something.
RL
raylopez99
You're welcome. BTW I might move to Manilla--I can work same as here,
remotely, and buy a top quality penthouse for $500k USD. And get laid
so easy. I'll check it out again later this year (been there
already). SE Asia is good because (at least in Thailand, but
Philippines was opposite) you can get pirate software. Why bother
with Linux when Vista Ultimate sells for $3? And your defense (if you
get caught) is: "I didn't think it was pirated!" Don't mention the $3
price tag to US Customs or the UK border police, which are worse I've
heard (they bust you for buying French goods and not paying the tax on
them when you cross back into the UK). But, like I said, in Manilla
they had no cheap bit copy shops like in Bangkok--it's weird, because
the Philippines are much poorer than Thailand. Maybe no
counterfeiting because Philippine President Gloria Arroyo is sucking
up to her friend Bush to get more aid money...
RL
raylopez99
> Up until recently I was doing lots of productive work on a laptop
> with almost exactly the same specs: P133, 48MB RAM, 1.3GB hard drive.
> In fact, it was my first Linux box; I loaded the CD I got with a
> book (Slackware 3.5, kernel 2.0.34) onto it and was able to include
> everything. Later I moved up to Slack 7 (kernel 2.2.13) - I had to
> omit some of the more obscure packages, but I was compiling Linux
> versions of my production software and even running X (fvwm). I
> shoved in a PCMCIA NIC and presto, it came up on my LAN. It's still
> tucked into a corner, and if I have the need I'm sure I could bring
> it up and use it for something...
I found this link: http://osmirrors.cerias.purdue.edu/pub/slackware/slackware-3.5/
Which file should I download to get a bootable version of Slack 3.5,
and, more importantly, is this version of Slack easy to install and
does it have a GUI interface, or do I need to learn commands in Unix?
Thanks,
RL
Douglas Mayne
Your system is within the target spec for DSL. I assume it will work.
The only junk in that category that I have lying around (waiting for the
recycler) is a Pentium 200 MMX on a Asus socket 8 motherboard. My board
accepts PC-100 SDRAM, so I could easily add RAM to get it up to 128M or
256M. If I did that, I could setup almost any* modern GNU/Linux. If
your board is similar, then you could do the same and not confine yourself
to DSL. But if you want to get started now, then go for DSL.
As I said if I were to go ahead and test my board, the first I would do
is add RAM. Then I could boot either Slax or Slackware 12.x. I rate the
chances for success with my board as approaching a 100% success rate. I
know it would run*** because it had been running Slackware 11.0 up
until a few months ago. The basic little Pentium 200 MMX had 64M RAM and
had been given the primary job of processing faxes. It answered the fax
line, rendered the fax as a PDF, and emailed the result to the secretary.
When a better "junk" system became available, I decided to upgrade and got
a lot more functionality in the bargain. Now, with a Celeron 1.3G CPU and
128M RAM, it has the horsepower to do more than just answer the phone. I
use it to serve remote X applications over SSH (firefox, gimp, openoffice,
kate, etc.). All work without a hitch. It looks like I can use it as my
"home" directory, too. I can use it from Windows, too. All I need is
putty and cygwin's X server and I am remotely connected to that
workstation.
Notes:
* Perhaps, there would be a problem with some distributions which require
an i686.
** It depends on how you define the word "run." It would "run" very
slowly. Running OpenOffice would be an exercise in futility. It would
technically be working at the job of opening files, etc. However, no
users that I know of would tolerate the long wait time. All things being
equal, I prefer faster*** CPUs.
*** I prefer Pentium III architecture over Pentium IV because the
P3 CPUs are generally draw less wattage.
--
Douglas Mayne
Douglas Mayne
-0700, raylopez99 wrote: on sat, 19 jul 2008 07:55:49.
I assume it will work. your system is within the target spec for dsl. i
assume it will work. your system is within the target spec for dsl. i
assume.
In that i have lying around (waiting for the same and not confine you
want to get it up to get started not confine you could setup almost any*
modern gnu/linux. if i did that, i could easily add ram to dsl. the only
junk in that i have lying around (waiting for the recycler) is a pentium
200 mmx on a asus socket 8 motherboard accepts pc-100 sdram, so i could
do the same and now, the same and now, then yourself to dsl. the only
junk in that category that category that, i could setup almost any*
modern gnu/linux. if i did that, i could setup almost any* modern
gnu/linux. if yourself to dsl. but if yourself to get started not
confine yourself to dsl. but if you want to get started now, the
recycler) is similar, then your board. my board is a pentium 200 mmx on
a asus socket 8 motherboard. my board. my board is a pentium 200 mmx on
a asus socket.
Result to the secretary. when a better "junk" system became available, i
decided the result to the remote x approaching faxes. it looks like i
could do is putty and 128m ram, it from windows, too. i know it as a
pdf, and test my board, the secretary. when i could do is add ram, it
had been given the bargain. now, with a celeron 1.3g cpu and i am
remotely connected the first i would running a 100% success without a
lot more functionality in the phone. i could running a 100% success
rate. i rate that work with my board, the faxes. it answer the phone. i
could run*** became available, i decided to do is putty and emailed to
go ahead and had been given the first i wered the result to go ahead and
i am remote x application. as i said if i would run*** became available,
i decided the fax line, rendered the primary job of process with a
celeron 1.3g cpu and i am remotely connected the fax as a pdf, and test
my board as my board as my board, the first i would boot either ssh
(firefox, gimp, openoffice, kate, etc.). all workstations over slackware
11.0 up until a few months ago. then i can use it from windows, too. all
workstations over slackware 12.x. i could do is putty and test my "home"
directory, too. all workstation. as i said if i would boot either
slackware 11.0 up until a few months ago. then a better "junk" system
became available, i decided the fax line, rendered to go ahead and
emailed the secretary. when a better "junk" system became available, i
decided the horsepower to that workstationality in the first i wered to
go ahead and i am remote x approaching fax line, rendered the first i
would do is add ram, it as applicationality in the faxes. it looks like
i can use it had 64m ram and 128m ram. the bargain. now, without a
hitch. it looks like i could run*** became available, i decided the
secretary. when a better "junk" system became available, i decided the
bargain. now, with a celeron 1.3g cpu and 128m ram. the basic little
pentium 200 mmx had been given the first i would running fax line,
rendered.
Require an i686. notes: * perhaps, there would be a problem with some
distributions which require an i686. notes: * perhaps, there would be a
problem with some distributions which require.
It depends on how you define the long wait time. all things being files,
etc. however, no users that i know of would "run" very slowly. running
equal, i prefer faster*** cpus. ** it depends on how you define the
working equal, i prefer faster*** cpus. ** it would be would "run" very
slowly. running openoffice word "run" very slowly. running files, etc.
however, no users that i know of opening files, etc. however, no users
that i know of would technically be working equal, i prefer faster***
cpus. ** it would "run." it depends on how you define the job of opening
equal, i prefer faster*** cpus. ** it would technically be working.
The p3 cpus are generally draw less wattage. *** i prefer pentium iii
architecture over pentium iii architecture over pentium iv because the
p3 cpus are generally draw less wattage. *** i prefer pentium iii
architecture.
Michael Black
> On Jul 18, 5:21 pm, Baho Utot <baho-u...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> raylopez99 wrote:
>>> Ok, this is my last post on this subject.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> --
>> Tayo'y mga Pinoy
>
> You're welcome. BTW I might move to Manilla--I can work same as here,
> remotely, and buy a top quality penthouse for $500k USD. And get laid
> so easy. I'll check it out again later this year (been there
> already). SE Asia is good because (at least in Thailand, but
> Philippines was opposite) you can get pirate software. Why bother
> with Linux when Vista Ultimate sells for $3?
Because they are two different operating systems. Linux is based on Unix,
that has nearly forty years of being an operating system that people have
lusted after, and nearly forty years of building on that foundation.
Linux is not merely "a free alternative to Windows", and that is likely
where a lot of the trouble comes from, newcomers thinking they can define
things without knowing the history or the technology.
A lot of us wanted to run Unix way back, I first heard about it in 1981,
and decided it was something that would be nice to have. Of course, the
software was expensive, and so was the needed hardware. It took 20 years
before I could get decent hardware cheap and Linux to get something I'd
wanted for 20 years.
Some of us ran operating systems decades ago that most people have never
heard of, because we wanted multi-tasking and we wanted as much of the
features of unix that we could get in an affordable "unix-like operating
system".
Some of us have never run Windows.
Indeed, when I was given this hand me down 1GHz Pentium at the end of
2003, Windows stayed on it about two days, sitting there while I prepared
to move over to the new machine. Other than those two times I tried
out the machine with Windows on it (and boy, was it difficult to do
things, I had to get out the books to figure out how to do things, and I
couldn't find things and it was all so different than trusty Linux),
Windows was gone. I did not bother setting it up to dual-boot, too much
trouble for little return.
Michael
raylopez99
> Some of us have never run Windows.
>
> Indeed, when I was given this hand me down 1GHz Pentium at the end of
> 2003, Windows stayed on it about two days, sitting there while I prepared
> to move over to the new machine. Other than those two times I tried
> out the machine with Windows on it (and boy, was it difficult to do
> things, I had to get out the books to figure out how to do things, and I
> couldn't find things and it was all so different than trusty Linux),
> Windows was gone. I did not bother setting it up to dual-boot, too much
> trouble for little return.
>
You remind me of me when I try Unix--I have to pull out a book to use
it. Or type 'man' and try and read fast as several pages of text fly
by on the screen.
You ever think perhaps that if 99% of the world is not using Linux,
that maybe, just maybe, 99% of the world has got it right? Food for
thought.
RL
Andrew Halliwell
> You remind me of me when I try Unix--I have to pull out a book to use
> it. Or type 'man' and try and read fast as several pages of text fly
> by on the screen.
Then don't keep your finger on the space bar.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
Jean-David Beyer
>
> You remind me of me when I try Unix--I have to pull out a book to use it.
>
Microsoft's $50 books and they were always several releases of the software
behind. I think there were abuot 5 of them for Microsoft Office
Professional, and a dozen on using their Visual C++ development suite, and
so on.
The main times I open a manual is when I need to change something in
_iptables_ firewall, the _bind_ name server, or the _sendmail_ mail transfer
agent. Most Windows users do not run a name server or a mail transfer agent,
so they need never do this, and they take whatever firewall they get with
Windows, or get one ready made and use it. The reason I have to use the
manual is that I need to change them less than once a year and in the
interval, I forget the nitty grittys.
> Or type 'man' and try and read fast as several pages of text fly by on
> the screen.
That is ancient history. All versions of the man command over the last 10
years or more are implicitly piped through the _less_ command if you are on
a terminal (but not if you send it to a printer).
>
> You ever think perhaps that if 99% of the world is not using Linux, that
> maybe, just maybe, 99% of the world has got it right? Food for thought.
>
Indigestion.
I think rarely matters to most people what they use for an OS, so they just
take whatever comes with their computer. Most people do not know they have a
choice. Of the 2 % or so who really care, half of them probably run Linux
because of somewhat better performance, greatly improved security, a nicer
development environment, and so on.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 06:35:01 up 8:15, 4 users, load average: 4.50, 4.23, 4.08
Paul Colquhoun
Most of that 99% don't use a computer at all. Maybe they *have* got it
right!
On the other hand, most of that 99% are living in poverty. Why don't you
give that a try for a while. Let us know how it turns out, in 10 years
or so.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
Baho Utot
Ok but Please....
Let me know when you arrive so I can arrange your stay with the NPA.
Tom A.
>
> You remind me of me when I try Unix--I have to pull out a book to use
> it. Or type 'man' and try and read fast as several pages of text fly
> by on the screen.
>
> You ever think perhaps that if 99% of the world is not using Linux,
> that maybe, just maybe, 99% of the world has got it right? Food for
> thought.
>
else is doing it!" I'll answer you the same way my wife and I answer our
kids:
"If everybody else is jumping off a cliff, would you jump off it, too?"
Tom A.
Baho Utot
We can only hope
Michael Black
And what we're seeing is lots of people learning Windows at a very early
age. They get the rudiments so they can play those games and write that
school project, at a time when they are open to new things. They know
nothing else when they get to adulthood, and they are starting to hit
adulthood now.
Why should they change? A computer is not the same thing as a telephone,
but at this point it becomes similar in use. Most people use it for
relatively simple things, they don't want to learn new things.
The mass has in effect come to the computer world, and they've come
after Windows arrived. Microsoft hasn't dominated by itself, there is
a willing mass of people wanting, not necessarily what Microsoft is
selling, but that uniformity and familiar world.
I thought I came late when I finally got a computer in 1979, lack of money
keeping me from it until then. But it was such a different world, all
those different computers, all those different operating systems, and a
different type of person being in the majority. They wanted to learn,
and they realized one operating system might not be the best choice.
Michael
Sebastian "lunar" Wiesner
> Ok but Please....
> Let me know when you arrive so I can arrange your stay with the NPA.
NPA means what?
--
Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
(Rosa Luxemburg)
Baho Utot
> Baho Utot <baho...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>> Ok but Please....
>> Let me know when you arrive so I can arrange your stay with the NPA.
>
> NPA means what?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_People's_Army
Whirled Peas
> My objective
> is not for this machine but for the target machine, which is a Pentium
> II - 200 MHZ (not my machine, but a friend's).
> RL
I have an old laptop that nearly fits those specs. It is a P2/233 with
128 RAM. It is running Arch Linux. It's certainly no speed demon, but it
works. I use fluxbox for the gui. DSL, Deli Linux, Antix, and Puppy are
all quite lightweight distros, though I am sure they have all been
suggested to you by now.
--
-wp-
Envisioning peas on earth.
Baho Utot
You sure?
When I told him to use Arch linux he stated it wouldn't work for him.
All my machines run Arch Linux, including my pentium 233 firewall/server
machine.
TJ
suggestion won't be what he's looking for, just so he can take something
you said and twist it into some snide, derisive remark about Linux.
That's what he DOES. Trust me, I know. He caught me in the same trap,
and I was even stupid enough to give him the benefit of the doubt and
come back for more later. Don't repeat my mistake. He'll get you, too.
TJ
Psyc Geek (TAB)
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:55:49 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
> > My objective
> > is not for this machine but for the target machine, which is a Pentium
> > II - 200 MHZ (not my machine, but a friend's).
> > RL
Use the Atari OS
TJ
OS uses a 6502 processor and proprietary chips. I don't think either
will work on a Pentium.
Oh, wait - you're trying to be funny. You failed.
TJ
TJ
JEDIDIAH
Actually, if you hadn't just fallen off the turnip truck yesterday
you would know that "the Atari OS" also had an x86 version that
was around about the same time that a 200Mhz machine was something
that might be considered current.
[deletia]
--
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of mysql's |||
popularity as does an attempt to do some simple date / | \
manipulations in postgres.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<baho...@invalid.invalid>
wrote
on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:23:55 -0400
<g5rc6q$56k$2...@registered.motzarella.org>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> [putolin]
>
>>> Processor: Pentium II, 133 MHz clock, 48 MB RAM (yes, fourty-eight),
>>> two HDs, one, the C: master drive, is a Seagate 1.275 GB drive and the
>>> D: drive slave is a 3.224 GB (Seagate ST3xxxx series).
>>>
>>> Floppy drive and CD-ROM reader only.
>>
>> 5 1/4" or 3 1/2"? :-)
>>>
>
> No 8"
>
*grin* Touche. :-) Good old Shugart.
Followups.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random DOMAIN DN660 foot heater here
If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
The Ghost In The Machine
<raylo...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
<3a7eb39a-bbf0-4b85...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
> On Jul 18, 3:42 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>
>> Oh no, we can find *plenty* of Linux distros that will
>> run *very* slow on an old PC with only 48 MB RAM.
>
> Today Ghost? Or yesteryear? If today, please mention some (other
> than DSL, which I know about, or confirm DSL might work).
Anything that installs KDE or Gnome, presumably. My nx9010
for instance has swallowed up 129 MB or so during bootup,
and I've not even logged in yet beyond using ssh. To be
fair, apache2 and postmaster are using 33MB and 24MB,
respectively, but the amount left over -- about 62MB --
is still too much for your box.
(This is a fairly standard Gentoo config, methinks.)
With Xfce, one should get a smaller footprint.
>
>
>>
>> No, it shouldn't take 10 minutes for a Windows machine to
>> boot up (even that relic); your friend's machine is most
>> likely infected.
>>
>
> No, it's not infected and I didn't time it, but it seemed like 10
> minutes.
OK.
>
>> > PS/2 Keyboard and USB mouse. Cheap $15 video card.
>>
>> Cheap, non-specific, totally undocumented video card.
>> And you expect us to do something intelligent?
>
> I have another decent ATI video card that I got for $50 and never
> used, so if the video card is a problem I can swap it out.
ATI might help in certain subareas, such as 3D graphics. I
still don't think it'll run compiz all that well though.
>
>
>> > More specifically, is there *any* Linux distro that will work with
>> > such puny RAM? I am skeptical.
>>
>> Nope, none at all. You'll have to get more RAM or reinstall Win2k.
>> I'd suggest 2 GB; you'll want Vista on that.
>>
>
> AHa! For a minute I thought you were serious.
I still don't have a clue as to what you want to do with
this machine, apart from disposing of it -- responsibly,
I hope.
>
>> > Oh, for you conspiracy nuts that think I'm just a troll who makes up
>> > stuff, this machine is different from the other target machine of the
>> > prior six (6) threads on this topic--this is just my old machine in
>> > mothballs that I'm ready to trash but want to test Linux on it.
>>
>> Ah, OK. Not that it matters; the other machine had a little more oomph.
>>
>> Your next machine should be a 386/20 4 MB board. (It would
>> be 8 MB but SIPs are apparently nonexistent nowadays.)
>> I think I can put a Trident on there, or maybe a 6845
>> (640 x 200 or 320 x 200 x 4, woo, colorful). I'd have
>> to hunt up an IDE controller now.
>>
>> C'mon. You know you want to ask.
>>
>
> Linux on the original 8088--that would be something.
Impossible; the design wouldn't take it. Linux was
originally designed for a 386, as Linus' original missive
makes very clear:
http://www.linux.org/people/linus_post.html
(The multiple hardware capability came a little later;
I don't know precisely when.)
There are alternatives that will work on an 8088, such
as Minix 2, but those aren't true Linux (though might be
of interest to the dedicated hacker [*]). The 80286 does
not have 32-bit flat address space capability, though they
did extend the iNtel paragraphing. The 80186 basically
dropped dead.
>
> RL
[*] in its original sense, not in the "cracker"/"phreaker" sense
so many confuse the term "hacker" with nowadays.
See, for instance, http://www.homebrewcpu.org/ -- which
is IMO a very tasty, if currently not all that useful,
hack; the machine is reminiscent of IMSAI in its heyday,
though with a totally different instruction set.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
TJ
> On 2008-07-21, TJ <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 4:18 pm, Whirled Peas <p...@earth.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:55:49 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
>>>>> My objective
>>>>> is not for this machine but for the target machine, which is a Pentium
>>>>> II - 200 MHZ (not my machine, but a friend's).
>>>>> RL
>>>
>>> Use the Atari OS
>>>
>> Which one? TOS only works on Motorola 68000 family CPUs, and the 8-bit
>> OS uses a 6502 processor and proprietary chips. I don't think either
>> will work on a Pentium.
>>
>> Oh, wait - you're trying to be funny. You failed.
>
> Actually, if you hadn't just fallen off the turnip truck yesterday
> you would know that "the Atari OS" also had an x86 version that
> was around about the same time that a 200Mhz machine was something
> that might be considered current.
>
> [deletia]
>
Atari made and sold some Intel-based machines in 1987 or so, they were
far from 200 MHz. They used processors ranging from 8086 to 80386,
running at 8-20 MHz. Those machines came with the GEM operating system,
which while a major part of Atari TOS, was originally developed for
Intel machines. TOS was an outgrowth of GEM, but not the same thing at all.
BTW, I fell off the truck in 1985, not yesterday.
TJ
Maxwell Lol
> raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You remind me of me when I try Unix--I have to pull out a book to use
>> it. Or type 'man' and try and read fast as several pages of text fly
>> by on the screen.
>
> Then don't keep your finger on the space bar.
> Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh
I think he was talking about the AT&T 386 version. I seem to recall
some flavors did not have more(1) installed, or PAGER defined.
Jean-David Beyer
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be
very selective about who its friends are. -- Kyle Hearn
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:20:01 up 8 days, 12:08, 4 users, load average: 4.75, 4.28, 4.14