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.
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.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:35:31 -0700, raylopez99 wrote: > 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.
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.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:21:53 -0600, Douglas Mayne wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:35:31 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.
<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.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:35:31 -0700 (PDT) <d2bf3dbb-daa8-41e8-86f1-f0a843d7c...@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 **
>> 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).
In article <d2bf3dbb-daa8-41e8-86f1-f0a843d7c...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
raylope...@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!
On Jul 18, 3:21 pm, Douglas Mayne <d...@localhost.localnet> wrote:
> 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
