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 ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

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

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

    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.

    RL

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

    raylopez99 wrote:



    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.


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

    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.
    >
    > Processor: Pentium II, 133 MHz clock, 48 MB RAM


    >

    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


  4. 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 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
    :
    > 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, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > Ok, this is my last post on this subject.


    Thank you

    --
    Tayo'y mga Pinoy

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

    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"

    --
    Tayo'y mga Pinoy

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

    In article ,
    raylopez99@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...

    --
    /~\ cgibbs@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!


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

    raylopez99 wrote:


    > RL

    would you just go away already, learn to use Google
    --
    Suse 11.0 x64, Kde 4.1beta (factory repo), Opera 9.x weekly

  9. Re: For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with48 MB RAM?

    On Jul 18, 3:21*pm, Douglas Mayne 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 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



  10. Re: For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with48 MB RAM?

    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).


    >
    > 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

  11. Re: For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with48 MB RAM

    On Jul 18, 7:57*pm, "Charlie Gibbs" wrote:
    > 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/p...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

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

    On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:55:49 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

    > On Jul 18, 3:21*pm, Douglas Mayne 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 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
    >

    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

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

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > 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?


    Slackware and KDE 4.0 and MythTV.... for the true Linux experience.



  14. Re: For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PCwith48 MB RAM?

    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


    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.

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

    On 2008-07-19, DFS wrote:
    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> 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?

    >
    > Slackware and KDE 4.0 and MythTV.... for the true Linux experience.
    >


    OTOH, you could just do "apt-get install kde" or "apt-get install mythtv"
    or whatever the fedora/mandrake type equivalent is.

    My Ubuntu MythTV installs take up about 4G.

    --
    Sophocles wants his cut. |||
    / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

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

    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

    >
    > 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.
    >


    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.

    --
    Tayo'y mga Pinoy

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

    * JEDIDIAH peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On 2008-07-19, DFS wrote:
    >> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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?

    >>
    >> Slackware and KDE 4.0 and MythTV.... for the true Linux experience.


    Hmmm, sounds nice.

    > OTOH, you could just do "apt-get install kde" or "apt-get install mythtv"
    > or whatever the fedora/mandrake type equivalent is.
    >
    > My Ubuntu MythTV installs take up about 4G.


    Ray could try Billix, and make himself a 128-Mb bootable USB key he can
    use to try Damn Small Linux, or do net-installs of Ubuntu, Debian,
    Centos, and Fedora.

    Plus it comes with a password cracker and disk-nuker he can use on his
    billy-box.

    --
    "No matter where you go, there you are..."
    -- Buckaroo Banzai

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

    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

    >
    > 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.
    >

    They have, and he doesn't care. He'll find some reason why your
    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

  19. Re: For the *LAST* time, please, what Linux distro for an old PC with48 MB RAM?

    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


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

    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.

    TJ

    TJ

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast