For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with 48MB RAM? - Linux

This is a discussion on For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with 48MB RAM? - Linux ; On 2008-07-21, TJ wrote: > Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote: >> On Jul 20, 4:18 pm, Whirled Peas wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:55:49 -0700, raylopez99 wrote: >>>> My objective >>>> is not for this machine but for the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with 48MB RAM?

  1. Re: For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with 48 MB RAM?

    On 2008-07-21, TJ wrote:
    > Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
    >> On Jul 20, 4:18 pm, Whirled Peas 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]

    --
    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

  2. Re: For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with 48 MB RAM?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Baho Utot

    wrote
    on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:23:55 -0400
    :
    > 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, ewill3@earthlink.net -- insert random DOMAIN DN660 foot heater here
    If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with 48 MB RAM?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, raylopez99

    wrote
    on Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
    <3a7eb39a-bbf0-4b85-8887-63888fe3bf2d@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
    > On Jul 18, 3:42*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    > 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, ewill3@earthlink.net
    If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  4. Re: For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PCwith 48 MB RAM?

    JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2008-07-21, TJ wrote:
    >> Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
    >>> On Jul 20, 4:18 pm, Whirled Peas 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]
    >

    And if you weren't still riding on that truck you'd know that while
    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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2