Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90485 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-25 04:41 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-29 00:19 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
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 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 20:03 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 23:47 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 06:54 +0000
Re: Ancient History John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-28 09:28 -0700
Re: Ancient History Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 18:53 +0100
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 20:58 +0000
Re: Ancient History John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-28 14:49 -0700
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 05:41 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:00 -0400
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:00 +0100
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 09:57 +0100
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:11 +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 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> - 2026-08-27 20:25 +0000
Re: Ancient History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-27 21:48 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:26 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 06:59 +0000
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:05 +0100
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 21:02 +0000
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:03 +0100
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:03 +0100
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:06 -0400
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:08 +0100
Re: Ancient History "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-29 13:45 +0200
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:03 +0100
Re: Ancient History Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-08-28 12:07 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 21:00 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:22 -0400
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:01 +0100
Re: Ancient History Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-08-29 10:01 -0400
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 22:13 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 04:24 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:21 -0400
Re: Ancient History not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-28 08:58 +1000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:36 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 04:42 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 02:37 -0400
Re: Ancient History not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-29 07:40 +1000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:03 -0400
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:06 +0100
Re: Ancient History Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-28 08:59 +0100
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 00:19 -0400
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | "Mr. Chang Man-wai" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 20:07 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <116k0hd$3n4sc$1@toylet.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #90485 |
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]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 11:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <116kbr5$3radh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90485 |
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]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn118rl34.pgj.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #90540 |
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]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 21:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <116l307$4nha$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90540 |
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]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 08:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6a8f6fbe@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #90485 |
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]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 01:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nf9hn6FprcuU18@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90651 |
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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 03:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <G6-dnT5sRIABdBL3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90655 |
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]
| From | vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 08:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <116ora7$19jd7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90667 |
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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 22:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <zX6dnaiqj-cqcw33nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90674 |
On 8/27/26 04:08, vallor wrote: > 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. X11 is 'ok'. It gets things done and is extensively documents and has lots of accessory utils at this point. Do NOT like Wayland at all. Maybe a clever 'AI' can go thru X11 and tighten it up ? Only used pure terminal with the very oldest, kinda original, Linux you could get. Slack, Red Hat and SUSE could be bought off store shelves back in the day, on floppies. But soon enough X11 was *just* good enough to be worth spending half a day installing. Great fun getting the monitor and mouse params set just right :-) Anyway, for low-powered boards, pure terminal may still be the way to go. You'll miss out on a lot of nice useful apps though. Had put a couple of the original PIs to work - the ones with fewer pins - and they used terminal AND did their little things for a good decade with no problems. Around the 10th year I finally remembered them - upgraded to the newest PiOS, but still terminal mode. Zero probs, they Just Worked. They were NOT 'online' so there were no 'security' worries. Were still doing their things when I retired. The new geek has likely trashed them alas - he kinda ONLY did Winders and lucky if he could write a 10 line Python script. DID know a lot more about M$ online services/packages than I did however. > 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 Heh heh ... X11 and friends did NOT just work out of the box back then. No plug-n-play. Lots of odd config files to tweak and re-tweak and re-tweak often with very minimal documentation. But it's much better now. As for the CPU/mem used by X11 and other GUI systems, even the dead cheap boards have WAY more than enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 04:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfcgseFprcuU32@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90709 |
On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 22:13:11 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Heh heh ... X11 and friends did NOT just work out of the box back > then. No plug-n-play. Lots of odd config files to tweak and re-tweak > and re-tweak often with very minimal documentation. One of the first things I do is switch the mouse buttons. A GUI is certainly nice compared to hunting down xorg.conf and trying to remember which pointer number was which. In the newer versions it's an InputDevice rather than Pointer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 03:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hwKdnfBu5K8ReBL3nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90651 |
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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 08:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6a90c126@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #90664 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > 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. Well no, on this Pentium 1 I find old Linux most useful, but I do sometimes find cause to boot to MSDOS or Win98. Often for running software that works with old hardware devices. If you've got an 8086 then of course you'll be looking at DOS instead. But Linux is definitely an option for a Pentium II, even if that one might want a RAM upgrade for running current versions easily. > Linux is 'better' for MOST stuff ... but if > your resources are VERY limited ..... Modern Linux at least, but if you don't mind running very old versions, BasicLinux is good for installing on the bare minimum of hardware that ever ran Linux: http://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/ -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 00:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <wxednYU-UqrrjQz3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90699 |
On 8/27/26 18:58, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> 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. > > Well no, on this Pentium 1 I find old Linux most useful, but I do > sometimes find cause to boot to MSDOS or Win98. Often for running > software that works with old hardware devices. By Pentium we were all good. But 88/186/286 ... Have not seen anything being sold as 'computers' lately using those old chips ... but there ARE some 'industrial/control' boards, oft PC-104, which do and are STILL doing their things. DID come across some 'Z-80' kit boards on Amazon not too long ago. Old old chip, but still has its charms and uses in certain areas. No, you are not gonna run Linux on it. > If you've got an 8086 then of course you'll be looking at DOS > instead. But Linux is definitely an option for a Pentium II, even > if that one might want a RAM upgrade for running current versions > easily. > >> Linux is 'better' for MOST stuff ... but if >> your resources are VERY limited ..... > > Modern Linux at least, but if you don't mind running very old > versions, BasicLinux is good for installing on the bare minimum of > hardware that ever ran Linux: > > http://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/ That's probably the smallest/tightest Linux, but I'd have to research. Old, but if TINY is what you really need for yer Project-X. The MODEL is a bit weird however, runs UNDER a DOS system. Do look into Slitaz ... the very basic version is also pretty damned small - the equal of Puppy or DSL as terminal-only, but with a little more charm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 04:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfcht1FprcuU33@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90699 |
On 28 Aug 2026 08:58:46 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > If you've got an 8086 then of course you'll be looking at DOS instead. > But Linux is definitely an option for a Pentium II, even if that one > might want a RAM upgrade for running current versions easily. Amazingly Amazon has 512 MB SyncRAM listed. I'm not sure the BIOS wouldn't have a meltdown. It's been too long and I don't remember the specifics but I had one box where I couldn't use what was then the readily available and cheap hard drives because they were too big. I hit the local shops looking for a vintage drive and their answer was 'Nah, we just throw those in the dumpster if we get one.'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 02:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <wxednbk-UqpIsQz3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90725 |
On 8/28/26 00:42, rbowman wrote: > On 28 Aug 2026 08:58:46 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> If you've got an 8086 then of course you'll be looking at DOS instead. >> But Linux is definitely an option for a Pentium II, even if that one >> might want a RAM upgrade for running current versions easily. > > Amazingly Amazon has 512 MB SyncRAM listed. I'm not sure the BIOS wouldn't > have a meltdown. It's been too long and I don't remember the specifics but > I had one box where I couldn't use what was then the readily available and > cheap hard drives because they were too big. I hit the local shops looking > for a vintage drive and their answer was 'Nah, we just throw those in the > dumpster if we get one.' Put down a deposit. Have them KEEP the drives and call you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 07:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6a920055@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #90725 |
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On 28 Aug 2026 08:58:46 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > I had one box where I couldn't use what was then the readily available and > cheap hard drives because they were too big. I hit the local shops looking > for a vintage drive and their answer was 'Nah, we just throw those in the > dumpster if we get one.' Some drives had a jumper setting to limit their capacity to under the point where some BIOSs got confused. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 02:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <xcGcnV6bb90S6w_3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90785 |
On 8/28/26 17:40, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> On 28 Aug 2026 08:58:46 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> I had one box where I couldn't use what was then the readily available and >> cheap hard drives because they were too big. I hit the local shops looking >> for a vintage drive and their answer was 'Nah, we just throw those in the >> dumpster if we get one.' > > Some drives had a jumper setting to limit their capacity to under > the point where some BIOSs got confused. Many mag drives STILL have those jumper pins. But less and less INFO on how to USE them to best effect. I have a MIX of SSD/Mag drives. Each has its own good qualities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 10:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <116u7er$3345j$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90785 |
On 28/08/2026 22:40, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> On 28 Aug 2026 08:58:46 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> I had one box where I couldn't use what was then the readily available and >> cheap hard drives because they were too big. I hit the local shops looking >> for a vintage drive and their answer was 'Nah, we just throw those in the >> dumpster if we get one.' > > Some drives had a jumper setting to limit their capacity to under > the point where some BIOSs got confused. > I had one job that entailed modifying a BIOS to use 2k sectors instead of the default 512b. That took us from 32MB to 128MB and allowed the machines to be shipped with 80Mbyte drives. I cant remember if that involved actually creating 2k sectors or translating between 512 and 2k on the fly so that DOS *thought* the drive had 2k sectors. -- If I had all the money I've spent on drink... ..I'd spend it on drink. Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 08:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nfctatFgb90U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90485 |
rbowman wrote: > 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. Over the years I have turfed-out numerous machines, there are a couple of servers wish I'd had the space to keep (DEC Alphaserver 2100a, HP 9000/800-F10) and one VAXserver 3300 that I have kept. The only "normal" PC I've kept the components from is an ABIT BP6 ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 00:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <xcGcnSKbb926ww_3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90737 |
On 8/28/26 03:59, Andy Burns wrote: > rbowman wrote: > >> 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. > > Over the years I have turfed-out numerous machines, there are a couple > of servers wish I'd had the space to keep (DEC Alphaserver 2100a, HP > 9000/800-F10) and one VAXserver 3300 that I have kept. The only > "normal" PC I've kept the components from is an ABIT BP6 ... I overhauled my 'tower' a few of years back - not a bad, high-clocked, P5, Asus quality. Lots of RAM, SSDs. Set it up, MX Linux, and then it's been OFF ever since. Relegated to the Back Room. Kinda use nothing but cheap laptops and those mini- boxes for all my stuff now. No, DON'T do games. "Raw Power" used to be a thing - maybe still has its place in some spheres - but no longer in MINE.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web