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 "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 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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#90485 — Ancient History

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#90498

On 8/25/26 00:41, 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.

   Yes, there ARE a few distros customized to run
   on VERY old hardware. This is good.

   HOWEVER - is it WORTH it ???

   Newer hardware, even if in the bargain-basement
   "refubished" bin, has a lot more speed and better
   chips and more RAM and such.

   My last desktop ... not a bad unit ... I installed
   the new board and an SSD and MX ... and then NEVER
   USED IT AGAIN. It's just sitting in the back room.
   Don't really have enough SPACE out front for it and,
   since I'm kinda stuck with wifi connections, the
   speed is mostly wasted.

   So ... bought BMax/BeeLink mini-boxes. Fast Enough,
   Capable Enough, pretty cheap (at least before the
   AI RAM-plague). They do all I need now very well.
   "Laptop Speed" turned out to be Good Enough.

   Also have a 'legacy' Core-2-Quad box with floppies
   and such. NEVER getting rid of that. It's not SUPER
   fast but better than you'd expect if you use Linux.
   Core-2-Quad was also the last Intel CPU that would
   run 8/16 code. CAN boot the old IBM CP/M-86 floppy
   on it.

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

#90539

On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 03:15:49 -0400
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

> Yes, there ARE a few distros customized to run on VERY old hardware.
> This is good.
> 
> HOWEVER - is it WORTH it ???
> 
> Newer hardware, even if in the bargain-basement "refubished" bin, has
> a lot more speed and better chips and more RAM and such.

Depends, but a lot of newer hardware gets pretty flaky with age.
Meanwhile I've got a PDP-11/73 that's north of 40 and still running as
well as it ever did.

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

#90558

On 25/08/2026 16:19, John Ames wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 03:15:49 -0400
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, there ARE a few distros customized to run on VERY old hardware.
>> This is good.
>>
>> HOWEVER - is it WORTH it ???
>>
>> Newer hardware, even if in the bargain-basement "refubished" bin, has
>> a lot more speed and better chips and more RAM and such.
> 
> Depends, but a lot of newer hardware gets pretty flaky with age.
> Meanwhile I've got a PDP-11/73 that's north of 40 and still running as
> well as it ever did.
> 
Slightly more expensive original purchase price though :-)
...and far less computing power


-- 
Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.
  – Will Durant

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

#90617

On 8/25/26 14:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 25/08/2026 16:19, John Ames wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 03:15:49 -0400
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, there ARE a few distros customized to run on VERY old hardware.
>>> This is good.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER - is it WORTH it ???
>>>
>>> Newer hardware, even if in the bargain-basement "refubished" bin, has
>>> a lot more speed and better chips and more RAM and such.
>>
>> Depends, but a lot of newer hardware gets pretty flaky with age.
>> Meanwhile I've got a PDP-11/73 that's north of 40 and still running as
>> well as it ever did.
>>
> Slightly more expensive original purchase price though :-)
> ...and far less computing power

   Grew up on the PDP-11 ... great box, and soon
   there was that newfangled 'C' language :-)

   SOME of those surely do still exist/run.
   They were SOLID - if in contemporary
   view - pretty limited.

   DID find some video of some guy bringing up
   THE original HTTP site on a PDP-11 ... from
   a strip of PAPER TAPE.

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

#90619

On 26/08/2026 09:25, c186282 wrote:
> Grew up on the PDP-11 ... great box, and soon
>    there was that newfangled 'C' language 🙂
> 
>    SOME of those surely do still exist/run.
>    They were SOLID - if in contemporary
>    view - pretty limited.
> 
The last of them are being taken out of service in embedded/industrial 
applications.

>    DID find some video of some guy bringing up
>    THE original HTTP site on a PDP-11 ... from
>    a strip of PAPER TAPE.

Well it's one way of programming a computer, though VAXen were a better 
choice if you didn't have a SUN...

-- 
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as 
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

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

#90507

On 2026-08-25 06:41, 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.
> 

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

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#90514

On 2026-08-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2026-08-25 06:41, 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.
>>
>
> Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble
> running SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.

I used the same machine for Windows 98 and GNU/Linux. Granted, it
started with 64 MiB and was at some point upgraded to at least 256 MiB
(and later a bit more). That Pentium II Slot 1 machine was in use as the
main desktop until 2008 (by then running Debian for 1-2 years, IIRC),
while I at some point used KDE 3, it was happy with that amount of
memory (and could also run e.g. OOo; a laptop with 64 MiB was a bit of a
different story), and life became easier as at some point I moved away
from DEs.

But this is already more than 48 MiB, and probably at a sweet point
where it was enough memory for the kernel, X11 and applications.

The biggest challenge was updating (compiling, Gentoo) GCC because of
insn_attrtab.c [1] :-D

Other challenges IIRC included Firefox coping with a larger amount of
open tabs (although it still behaved much better than nowadays), and in
one specific use case, Egacs, er, Emacs.


Overall, Windows 98 was, even considering its issues, a nice system, a
nice interface usually with light resource requirements. I think the
only slowdown I remember was browsing DVD media in the Windows Explorer,
and I have no idea if that was a Windows issue in itself or something
with that specific optical drive. It's no Windows NT, but there's
probably a reason it tends to be fondly remembered, even with MICROS~1
being MICROS~1 (they've, for example, IIRC not released the fix for
KB312108 (NDIS "Protection Error" on fast enough CPUs [2]), instead
making it available on request through their support channels... (I have
no idea if this was on ftp.microsoft.com, I suppose it's possible it was
there despite this?)).

[1] <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442> (behind Anubis)
[2] <http://web.archive.org/web/20040513001718/http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312108>

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#90530

On 25/08/2026 11:53, Nuno Silva wrote:
> Overall, Windows 98 was, even considering its issues, a nice system, a
> nice interface usually with light resource requirements.

Yes. I knew people who ran that - I was on it until I got XP - and yes, 
it blue screened and crashed and locked up but when it worked it was 
sorta OK. Needed 16MB of RAM. And a 466 or Pentium, Think I had an AMD

I cant remember how big my first *desktop* linux machine was - I'd 
deployed it on a NAS already - but 256MB rings a bell.



-- 
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

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

#90565

On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 12:54:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 25/08/2026 11:53, Nuno Silva wrote:
>> Overall, Windows 98 was, even considering its issues, a nice system, a
>> nice interface usually with light resource requirements.
> 
> Yes. I knew people who ran that - I was on it until I got XP - and yes,
> it blue screened and crashed and locked up but when it worked it was
> sorta OK. Needed 16MB of RAM. And a 466 or Pentium, Think I had an AMD
> 
> I cant remember how big my first *desktop* linux machine was - I'd
> deployed it on a NAS already - but 256MB rings a bell.

I installed Slackware from floppies on something. but I can't remember 
what. I also installed Mandrake from the shrik wrapped box set but it 
certainly wasn't on the Compaq.

https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4801

That recommends 128 or preferably 256 MB. KDE was fat by 2001.

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

#90534

On 2026-08-25 12:53, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-08-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-08-25 06:41, 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.
>>>
>>
>> Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble
>> running SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.
> 
> I used the same machine for Windows 98 and GNU/Linux. Granted, it
> started with 64 MiB and was at some point upgraded to at least 256 MiB

The machine I was talking above had much less than that. I think one 
machine had 5 MiB, later had another with maybe 8 or 16. I don't 
remember for sure.

Not 98, after 95 I had Me.

> (and later a bit more). That Pentium II Slot 1 machine was in use as the
> main desktop until 2008 (by then running Debian for 1-2 years, IIRC),
> while I at some point used KDE 3, it was happy with that amount of
> memory (and could also run e.g. OOo; a laptop with 64 MiB was a bit of a
> different story), and life became easier as at some point I moved away
> from DEs.
> 
> But this is already more than 48 MiB, and probably at a sweet point
> where it was enough memory for the kernel, X11 and applications.
> 
> The biggest challenge was updating (compiling, Gentoo) GCC because of
> insn_attrtab.c [1] :-D
> 
> Other challenges IIRC included Firefox coping with a larger amount of
> open tabs (although it still behaved much better than nowadays), and in
> one specific use case, Egacs, er, Emacs.

FFx caused trashing.


> Overall, Windows 98 was, even considering its issues, a nice system, a
> nice interface usually with light resource requirements. I think the
> only slowdown I remember was browsing DVD media in the Windows Explorer,
> and I have no idea if that was a Windows issue in itself or something
> with that specific optical drive. It's no Windows NT, but there's
> probably a reason it tends to be fondly remembered, even with MICROS~1
> being MICROS~1 (they've, for example, IIRC not released the fix for
> KB312108 (NDIS "Protection Error" on fast enough CPUs [2]), instead
> making it available on request through their support channels... (I have
> no idea if this was on ftp.microsoft.com, I suppose it's possible it was
> there despite this?)).
> 
> [1] <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442> (behind Anubis)
> [2] <http://web.archive.org/web/20040513001718/http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312108>
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#90601

On 8/25/26 08:23, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-08-25 12:53, Nuno Silva wrote:
>> On 2026-08-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-08-25 06:41, 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Back then, my machine that would happily run Win 98 had trouble
>>> running SuSE Linux. Linux wanted as much ram as possible.
>>
>> I used the same machine for Windows 98 and GNU/Linux. Granted, it
>> started with 64 MiB and was at some point upgraded to at least 256 MiB
> 
> The machine I was talking above had much less than that. I think one 
> machine had 5 MiB, later had another with maybe 8 or 16. I don't 
> remember for sure.
> 
> Not 98, after 95 I had Me.
> 
>> (and later a bit more). That Pentium II Slot 1 machine was in use as the
>> main desktop until 2008 (by then running Debian for 1-2 years, IIRC),
>> while I at some point used KDE 3, it was happy with that amount of
>> memory (and could also run e.g. OOo; a laptop with 64 MiB was a bit of a
>> different story), and life became easier as at some point I moved away
>> from DEs.
>>
>> But this is already more than 48 MiB, and probably at a sweet point
>> where it was enough memory for the kernel, X11 and applications.
>>
>> The biggest challenge was updating (compiling, Gentoo) GCC because of
>> insn_attrtab.c [1] :-D
>>
>> Other challenges IIRC included Firefox coping with a larger amount of
>> open tabs (although it still behaved much better than nowadays), and in
>> one specific use case, Egacs, er, Emacs.
> 
> FFx caused trashing.
> 
> 
>> Overall, Windows 98 was, even considering its issues, a nice system, a
>> nice interface usually with light resource requirements. I think the
>> only slowdown I remember was browsing DVD media in the Windows Explorer,
>> and I have no idea if that was a Windows issue in itself or something
>> with that specific optical drive. It's no Windows NT, but there's
>> probably a reason it tends to be fondly remembered, even with MICROS~1
>> being MICROS~1 (they've, for example, IIRC not released the fix for
>> KB312108 (NDIS "Protection Error" on fast enough CPUs [2]), instead
>> making it available on request through their support channels... (I have
>> no idea if this was on ftp.microsoft.com, I suppose it's possible it was
>> there despite this?)).
>>
>> [1] <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442> (behind Anubis)
>> [2] <http://web.archive.org/web/20040513001718/http:// 
>> support.microsoft.com/?kbid=312108>

   Heh ... had one client, a doctor, who would go
   looking for garage sales with like ancient
   Packard Bell computers.

   Then I was supposed to make them work with his
   other office stuff - networking, accounting
   apps, medical database stuff.

   Remember "LANtastic" ? WAY smaller/cheaper
   than Novell networking.

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

   DID boost the accountants box, added a
   whole two megabytes of RAM I found
   somewhere. DID quad the speed of his
   accounting app. He was very happy.

   That's "MEGAbytes", not "GIGAbytes".

   Doc was a fun guy, rarely took any money for it.
   Got a few perks too, esp during 'epidemics'.
   He once sneaked-up behind me with a flu shot,
   said I was an 'invaluable worker'. Much of the
   general pubic didn't get vax that year, for
   some reason it was reserved for 'high-risk'
   people.

   Spent a lot of time in his ceiling space
   running wires .... much younger then.
   Would not dare do anything like that now.
   Don't even like step-ladders. As Mick
   said, "What a drag it is getting old" ...

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

#90613

On 26/08/2026 08:28, c186282 wrote:
> As Mick
>    said, "What a drag it is getting old" ...

"It was more fun being 20 in the 70s than 70 in the twenties"

-- 
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing 
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

[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]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web