Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90485 > unrolled thread

Ancient History

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 04:41 +0000
    Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 03:15 -0400
      Re: Ancient History John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-25 08:19 -0700
        Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 19:57 +0100
          Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:25 -0400
            Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:33 +0100
            Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:20 +0000
              Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:27 +0100
                Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 01:13 +0000
                  Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:24 -0400
    Re: Ancient History "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:41 +0200
      Re: Ancient History Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:53 +0100
        Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:54 +0100
          Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:25 +0000
        Re: Ancient History "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 14:23 +0200
          Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 03:28 -0400
            Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:12 +0100
              Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:26 +0000
                Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:56 -0400
                  Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 12:00 +0100
            Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:23 +0000
              Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:29 +0100
      Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:31 +0100
        Re: Ancient History Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-08-25 07:53 -0400
        Re: Ancient History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
          Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:37 +0000
      Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:16 +0000
        Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:21 +0100
          Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:40 +0000
    Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:30 +0100
      Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:49 -0400
    Re: Ancient History "Mr. Chang Man-wai" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-08-25 20:07 +0800
    Re: Ancient History Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:20 -0400
      Re: Ancient History Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-25 17:44 +0000
      Re: Ancient History Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:55 +0000
    Re: Ancient History not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-27 08:59 +1000
      Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 01:20 +0000
        Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:38 -0400
          Re: Ancient History vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-27 08:08 +0000
      Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:21 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#90646

On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 03:28:20 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Amazing how Win95/98 WOULD work with WAY too little RAM. Just, well,
>    kinda SLOW.

Up to 16 MB Win95 would set up a swap file. 48 MB wasn't bad. iirc early 
Linux was also big on swapping stuff out. I think you can still push Mint 
on 4 GB hard enough it will start shedding programs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90649

On 26/08/2026 19:23, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 03:28:20 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Amazing how Win95/98 WOULD work with WAY too little RAM. Just, well,
>>     kinda SLOW.
> 
> Up to 16 MB Win95 would set up a swap file. 48 MB wasn't bad. iirc early
> Linux was also big on swapping stuff out. I think you can still push Mint
> on 4 GB hard enough it will start shedding programs.

Yes. Tho mine tends to just crash. After  its been 'laptop downed'
  --
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90526

On 25/08/2026 10:41, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> 
> Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble running 
> SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.
> 
Yep. My VM XP runs in 3GB Ram But the old 98 was a fair bit less than that

-- 
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They 
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90529

The Natural Philosopher wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):

> On 25/08/2026 10:41, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> 
>> Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble running 
>> SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.
>> 
> Yep. My VM XP runs in 3GB Ram But the old 98 was a fair bit less than that

So do Republican governments, based on past and present history:

> -- 
> "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They 
> always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"
>
> Margaret Thatcher

-- 
"Success covers a multitude of blunders."
		-- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90550

On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 25/08/2026 10:41, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble running 
>> SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.
> 
> Yep. My VM XP runs in 3GB Ram But the old 98 was a fair bit less than that

My XP VM runs in 512MB.  Mind you, I don't run big programs...

My first Linux box had 48MB of RAM and a 1.3GB hard drive.
I loaded Slackware 3.5 onto it, later upgrading to Slack 7.
I was able to run X (with fvwm), and under Wine I managed
to run a couple of my Windows programs that talked to each
other.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90567

On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 18:26:48 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> My first Linux box had 48MB of RAM and a 1.3GB hard drive.
> I loaded Slackware 3.5 onto it, later upgrading to Slack 7.
> I was able to run X (with fvwm), and under Wine I managed to run a
> couple of my Windows programs that talked to each other.

My first distro was Slackware, downloaded from the ftp site in floppy 
sized chunks. A lot of chunks. If there is anything on the old Compaq that 
must be it. 

The CD is gone but Red Hat Linux 5.1 from 1998 says it will run in 8 MB. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90562

On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 11:41:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble running
> SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.

I have the boxed set of SuSE 8.1 from 2002. I'll have to check the system 
requirements but I doubt 48 MB is in the cards. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90564

On 25/08/2026 20:16, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 11:41:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble running
>> SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.
> 
> I have the boxed set of SuSE 8.1 from 2002. I'll have to check the system
> requirements but I doubt 48 MB is in the cards.

"A default graphical installation of SuSE Linux 8.1 (released in 2002) 
requires a minimum of 2 GB of free hard disk space and at least 96 MB to 
128 MB of RAM for comfortable desktop use. "

Works OK as a server

-- 
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a 
kind word alone.

Al Capone

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90593

On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 20:21:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> "A default graphical installation of SuSE Linux 8.1 (released in 2002)
> requires a minimum of 2 GB of free hard disk space and at least 96 MB to
> 128 MB of RAM for comfortable desktop use. "

Inflation was well underway. It's been a minute or two since I used it but 
I don't remember Win95 being all that bad in a box with 48 MB. However I 
was moving up from Windows 3.11 on a Compaq Concerto with 4 MB of RAM and 
a 33 MHz processor. I was fortunate enough not to get involved with 
Windows 1.0 or 2.0.

I never felt deprived until Java introduced Swing instead of AWT. Let the 
enshitification begin. I lost interest when the answer to the sloth like 
performance in the Java forums was 'You need a better computer.' 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90525

On 25/08/2026 05:41, rbowman wrote:
> In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower
> buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario
> 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II.
> It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB
> of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing
> convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it
> expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports.
> 
> Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax
> specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very
> specific.
> 
> I think I'll let that sleeping dog slumber on although I might see if it
> boots at all.
> 
> Now for the real puzzle. I was a fairly decent machine in 1997 and came
> with Windows 95. Windows 95 claimed a minimum of 4 MB, recommended 8 MB,
> and if you had 16 MB or more didn't bother creating a swap file. What the
> flaming hell has happened to us?  Even by Windows 98 24 MB was
> recommended. Now you can barely run a pared down Linux in 48 MB and I
> doubt it's a very appealing UX.
> 
We used to run SCO Unix headless on machines just like that. That had a 
TCP stack available.

Eventually Linux was just 'better'.


You probably want a very old distro to install on it


-- 
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90599

On 8/25/26 07:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 25/08/2026 05:41, rbowman wrote:
>> In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower
>> buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario
>> 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II.
>> It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB
>> of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing
>> convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it
>> expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports.
>>
>> Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax
>> specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very
>> specific.
>>
>> I think I'll let that sleeping dog slumber on although I might see if it
>> boots at all.
>>
>> Now for the real puzzle. I was a fairly decent machine in 1997 and came
>> with Windows 95. Windows 95 claimed a minimum of 4 MB, recommended 8 MB,
>> and if you had 16 MB or more didn't bother creating a swap file. What the
>> flaming hell has happened to us?  Even by Windows 98 24 MB was
>> recommended. Now you can barely run a pared down Linux in 48 MB and I
>> doubt it's a very appealing UX.
>>
> We used to run SCO Unix headless on machines just like that. That had a 
> TCP stack available.
> 
> Eventually Linux was just 'better'.

   DID have some experience with SCO ... my boss
   was interested as a better alt to DOS. We bought
   ONE copy - and it wasn't that cheap. Saw some
   good in it - but it just wasn't what the org
   needed at the time.

   When Linux came along however ...

> You probably want a very old distro to install on it

   VERY old.

   NOT likely to recognize ANY of your devices.
   Won't even be a USB driver for an external
   floppy, maybe not even a USB anything.

   Sometimes we forget how basic/crude things
   were Back In The Day - not THAT long ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90531

On 8/25/2026 12:41 PM, rbowman wrote:
> In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower
> buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario
> 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II.
> It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB
> of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing
> convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it
> expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports.

HTTPS requires a lot of calculations. So
are many encrypted software updates including
Windows Update. And modern YouTube is high-
definition (720p and 1080p) and using high
refresh rates.

If you could find text-only HTTP (not HTTPS)
websites.... :)


-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90540

On Tue, 8/25/2026 12:41 AM, rbowman wrote:
> In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower 
> buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario 
> 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II. 
> It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB 
> of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing 
> convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it 
> expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports.
> 
> Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax 
> specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very 
> specific.
> 
> I think I'll let that sleeping dog slumber on although I might see if it 
> boots at all. 
> 
> Now for the real puzzle. I was a fairly decent machine in 1997 and came 
> with Windows 95. Windows 95 claimed a minimum of 4 MB, recommended 8 MB, 
> and if you had 16 MB or more didn't bother creating a swap file. What the 
> flaming hell has happened to us?  Even by Windows 98 24 MB was 
> recommended. Now you can barely run a pared down Linux in 48 MB and I 
> doubt it's a very appealing UX.
> 

https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=50935

    "I find working through all the "trouble" to be more rewarding than the result."

A lot of software you could run on such a machine, would have an "SSE2 requirement",
so you may have to stick with software from the era.

At one time, packed data structures were "quite popular". Today, you can have
an individual write an image utility, where instead of using 24 bits for
a pixel, "each color is represented by a 64 bit number" or "we're using a floating
point number for R, for G, and for B". Proud claims of piggish design :-)
The reason I note this, is one day, I attempted to open an image,
sure, the image was a large one, the machine returns "out of RAM".
And that's when I started checking for what exactly they were
doing inside. You do an eye roll. You're yelling "why would you do this?".
And so on :-)

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90548

On 2026-08-25, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 8/25/2026 12:41 AM, rbowman wrote:
>> In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower 
>> buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario 
>> 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II. 
>> It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB 
>> of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing 
>> convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it 
>> expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports.
>> 
>> Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax 
>> specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very 
>> specific.
>> 
>> I think I'll let that sleeping dog slumber on although I might see if it 
>> boots at all. 
>> 
>> Now for the real puzzle. I was a fairly decent machine in 1997 and came 
>> with Windows 95. Windows 95 claimed a minimum of 4 MB, recommended 8 MB, 
>> and if you had 16 MB or more didn't bother creating a swap file. What the 
>> flaming hell has happened to us?  Even by Windows 98 24 MB was 
>> recommended. Now you can barely run a pared down Linux in 48 MB and I 
>> doubt it's a very appealing UX.
>> 
>
> https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=50935
>
>     "I find working through all the "trouble" to be more rewarding than the result."
>
> A lot of software you could run on such a machine, would have an "SSE2 requirement",
> so you may have to stick with software from the era.
>
> At one time, packed data structures were "quite popular". Today, you can have
> an individual write an image utility, where instead of using 24 bits for
> a pixel, "each color is represented by a 64 bit number" or "we're using a floating
> point number for R, for G, and for B". Proud claims of piggish design :-)
> The reason I note this, is one day, I attempted to open an image,
> sure, the image was a large one, the machine returns "out of RAM".
> And that's when I started checking for what exactly they were
> doing inside. You do an eye roll. You're yelling "why would you do this?".
> And so on :-)
>
>    Paul

What image [mis-]handling software was being that wasteful of
RAM?

ImageMagick also has a limit on the size of a "pixel cache" with
a default of 2GiB.  That limit can be exceeded when working with
fairly high resolution scans of full-page paper documents.
Fortunately, it is fairly easy to specify a larger limit in
/etc/ImageMagick-7/policy.xml

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90571

On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 11:20:03 -0400, Paul wrote:

> At one time, packed data structures were "quite popular". Today, you
> can have an individual write an image utility, where instead of
> using 24 bits for a pixel, "each color is represented by a 64 bit
> number" or "we're using a floating point number for R, for G, and
> for B". Proud claims of piggish design :-) The reason I note this,
> is one day, I attempted to open an image, sure, the image was a
> large one, the machine returns "out of RAM". And that's when I
> started checking for what exactly they were doing inside. You do an
> eye roll.

Sounds like OpenEXR. Quite popular among the CG content-creation
crowd. Also incidentally something that Adobe isn’t quite au fait
with.

<https://openexr.com/>.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90651

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower 
> buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario 
> 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II. 
> It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB 
> of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing 
> convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it 
> expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports.

Very modern compared to the 120MHz Pentium 1 I'm posting this from,
running old Linux.

> Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax 
> specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very 
> specific.

For current Tiny Core I don't think their standard boot to RAM
method will fit in 48MB anymore, but if you do a manual "HDD
install" it will boot with 20MB RAM, and then their default Xvesa
TinyX server will probably work in 48MB.

> Now for the real puzzle. I was a fairly decent machine in 1997 and came 
> with Windows 95. Windows 95 claimed a minimum of 4 MB, recommended 8 MB, 
> and if you had 16 MB or more didn't bother creating a swap file. What the 
> flaming hell has happened to us?  Even by Windows 98 24 MB was 
> recommended. Now you can barely run a pared down Linux in 48 MB and I 
> doubt it's a very appealing UX.

Some bloat is from the drivers. OpenWRT separately packages a lot of
modules for things that are built into the kernel in other distro's
kernel builds. Since the total size of the kernel is subtracted
from the RAM that's left available for everything else, that allows
booting in less RAM. But even the size of that minimum kernel has
grown rapidly in recent years such that they no longer officially
support routers with 32MB RAM.

Otherwise it's software choice. I wonder if the "UX" I choose for
all my Linux systems regardless of performance isn't appealing to
you since it's largely the same set of software that my Pentium 1
can run. However in some cases where I've had to find alternatives
due to incompatibility with modern Linux/libraries maybe the
"appealing UX" is why I classed them all as useless? Each to his
own...

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90655

On 27 Aug 2026 08:59:10 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> Otherwise it's software choice. I wonder if the "UX" I choose for all my
> Linux systems regardless of performance isn't appealing to you since
> it's largely the same set of software that my Pentium 1 can run. However
> in some cases where I've had to find alternatives due to incompatibility
> with modern Linux/libraries maybe the "appealing UX" is why I classed
> them all as useless? Each to his own...

I've been spoiled over the decades but antiX's IceWM is about my minimum 
unless you cound i3 or sway. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90667

On 8/26/26 21:20, rbowman wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2026 08:59:10 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> 
>> Otherwise it's software choice. I wonder if the "UX" I choose for all my
>> Linux systems regardless of performance isn't appealing to you since
>> it's largely the same set of software that my Pentium 1 can run. However
>> in some cases where I've had to find alternatives due to incompatibility
>> with modern Linux/libraries maybe the "appealing UX" is why I classed
>> them all as useless? Each to his own...
> 
> I've been spoiled over the decades but antiX's IceWM is about my minimum
> unless you cound i3 or sway.

   ANTIX with ICEWM will indeed Get It Done while
   using kinda minimal resources.

   It's not the easiest/prettiest ... but Gets It Done.

   If a hard-core you can go with pure Terminal Mode too,
   dump 'XORG'. Saves a lot of RAM and complexity. For,
   say, a PI-2, it's a fair option. DID have one of those,
   doing it's little thing, for a DECADE.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90674

At Thu, 27 Aug 2026 03:38:48 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

> On 8/26/26 21:20, rbowman wrote:
> > On 27 Aug 2026 08:59:10 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> > 
> >> Otherwise it's software choice. I wonder if the "UX" I choose for all my
> >> Linux systems regardless of performance isn't appealing to you since
> >> it's largely the same set of software that my Pentium 1 can run. However
> >> in some cases where I've had to find alternatives due to incompatibility
> >> with modern Linux/libraries maybe the "appealing UX" is why I classed
> >> them all as useless? Each to his own...
> > 
> > I've been spoiled over the decades but antiX's IceWM is about my minimum
> > unless you cound i3 or sway.
> 
>    ANTIX with ICEWM will indeed Get It Done while
>    using kinda minimal resources.
> 
>    It's not the easiest/prettiest ... but Gets It Done.
> 
>    If a hard-core you can go with pure Terminal Mode too,
>    dump 'XORG'. Saves a lot of RAM and complexity. For,
>    say, a PI-2, it's a fair option. DID have one of those,
>    doing it's little thing, for a DECADE.

I used to use just the raw console, until my colleagues dragged
me kicking and screaming into the world of X11.

So I spent a weekend at my desk at SRJC, with some O'Reilly
nutshell books and dug into setting up my X environment.

Besides twm, my first window manager was the OpenLook Virtual
Window Manager, olvwm:

https://vallor.earth/screenshots/screensh.gif

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 Mem: 258G
   OS: Linux 7.2.0 D: Mint 22.3 DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
   NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090Ti (24G) (610.57.04)
   "Bureaucrat, n.: A person who cuts red tape sideways."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90664

On 8/26/26 18:59, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower
>> buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario
>> 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II.
>> It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB
>> of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing
>> convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it
>> expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports.
> 
> Very modern compared to the 120MHz Pentium 1 I'm posting this from,
> running old Linux.
> 
>> Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax
>> specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very
>> specific.
> 
> For current Tiny Core I don't think their standard boot to RAM
> method will fit in 48MB anymore, but if you do a manual "HDD
> install" it will boot with 20MB RAM, and then their default Xvesa
> TinyX server will probably work in 48MB.


   Linux IS just 'fatter' than DOS or CP/M ... no
   getting around it. For very old boards you
   really MAY be better off with DOS if you are
   seriously trying to squeeze things in.

   Linux is 'better' for MOST stuff ... but if
   your resources are VERY limited .....

   Sorry, NO 'panacea' ... gotta pick the best
   system for what YOU have/need at the moment.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web