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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #224329 > unrolled thread

Re: Very old hardware...

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Very old hardware... Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2020-07-03 21:00 +0200
    Re: Very old hardware... deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-07-04 18:10 +0200
    Re: Very old hardware... deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-07-04 19:20 +0200
    Re: Very old hardware... deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-07-05 04:40 +0200
      Re: Very old hardware... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-05 07:00 +0200
        Re: Very old hardware... Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> - 2020-07-05 07:20 +0200
          Re: Very old hardware... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-05 18:30 +0200
            Re: Very old hardware... "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2020-07-05 19:40 +0200
        Re: Very old hardware... deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-07-05 12:10 +0200
          Re: Very old hardware... Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2020-07-05 17:10 +0200
            Re: Very old hardware... Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> - 2020-07-05 18:00 +0200
          Re: Very old hardware... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-05 18:10 +0200
            Re:  Very old hardware... "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-07-05 23:50 +0200
              Re: Very old hardware... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-12 02:10 +0200
                Re: Very old hardware... deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 09:10 +0200
                Re: Very old hardware... Mark Allums <mark@allums.email> - 2020-07-12 09:40 +0200
    Re: Very old hardware... Keith bainbridge <keithrbau@gmail.com> - 2020-07-05 09:00 +0200

#224329 — Re: Very old hardware...

On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 07:17:33PM +0200, Davide Lombardo wrote:
>Good evening Debian User, I have found an old PC with these specs:
>CPU: Pentium III 700 Mhz;
>DRAM: 64 MB SDDR
>GPU: RIVA TNT-2
>HARDISK: 10 GB
>FLOPPY DISK DRIVE
>MODEM 56K
>In the receipt is written 3,000 Lire (1,500) Euro of today...
>Do you think I can install something different than the already installed
>WIN98 system ?

If the goal is just to experiment then you could run an older version of 
debian. (I think there's not enough memory for the current install 
routine.) OpenBSD or NetBSD or a linux distribution oriented toward 
small systems would run. Nothing will give you a good experience with a 
GUI and web browser on that hardware. For practical purposes, you'd be 
better off with a $35 raspberry PI.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#224354

Michael Stone wrote:

> If the goal is just to experiment then you could run an older version of
> debian. (I think there's not enough memory for the current install
> routine.) OpenBSD or NetBSD or a linux distribution oriented toward
> small systems would run. Nothing will give you a good experience with a
> GUI and web browser on that hardware. For practical purposes, you'd be
> better off with a $35 raspberry PI.

I was also thinking of this. It is so old, that it is not worth the
electricity it consumes.

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

#224359

Davide Lombardo wrote:

> Maybe I can just setup this PC as a Tor's Relay

Perhaps you did not understand correctly. The old 386 architecture is not
likely to be supported by recent kernels. The power consumptioned to
processing power ratio is below reasonable value.
It is not likely it makes sense to use it in any meaningful way.

The thing is that those old PC had more pressious metals in them or you can
donate it to the museum.

As mentioned by Michael Stone a 35-50$ Rpi 3 or 4 will be much more
efficient. I would add any used or refurbished PC in that range too.

regards

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

#224370

Davide Lombardo wrote:

> On Friday, 3 July 2020 20:58:52 CEST Michael Stone wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 07:17:33PM +0200, Davide Lombardo wrote:
>> >Good evening Debian User, I have found an old PC with these specs:
>> >CPU: Pentium III 700 Mhz;
>> >DRAM: 64 MB SDDR
>> >GPU: RIVA TNT-2
>> >HARDISK: 10 GB
>> >FLOPPY DISK DRIVE
>> >MODEM 56K
>> >In the receipt is written 3,000 Lire (1,500) Euro of today...
>> >Do you think I can install something different than the already
>> >installed WIN98 system ?
>> 
>> If the goal is just to experiment then you could run an older version of
>> debian. (I think there's not enough memory for the current install
>> routine.) OpenBSD or NetBSD or a linux distribution oriented toward
>> small systems would run. Nothing will give you a good experience with a
>> GUI and web browser on that hardware. For practical purposes, you'd be
>> better off with a $35 raspberry PI.
> 
> Maybe I can just setup this PC as a Tor's Relay

Cite: 

However, Debian GNU/Linux stretch willnot run on 586 (Pentium) or earlier
processors. 
https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/i386/ch02s01.html.en
+
https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/i386/ch02s01.en.html

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

#224373

On Sun 05 Jul 2020 at 04:35:49 (+0200), deloptes wrote:
> Davide Lombardo wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 July 2020 20:58:52 CEST Michael Stone wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 07:17:33PM +0200, Davide Lombardo wrote:
> >> >Good evening Debian User, I have found an old PC with these specs:
> >> >CPU: Pentium III 700 Mhz;
> >> >DRAM: 64 MB SDDR
> >> >GPU: RIVA TNT-2
> >> >HARDISK: 10 GB
> >> >FLOPPY DISK DRIVE
> >> >MODEM 56K
> >> >In the receipt is written 3,000 Lire (1,500) Euro of today...
> >> >Do you think I can install something different than the already
> >> >installed WIN98 system ?
> >> 
> >> If the goal is just to experiment then you could run an older version of
> >> debian. (I think there's not enough memory for the current install
> >> routine.) OpenBSD or NetBSD or a linux distribution oriented toward
> >> small systems would run. Nothing will give you a good experience with a
> >> GUI and web browser on that hardware. For practical purposes, you'd be
> >> better off with a $35 raspberry PI.
> > 
> > Maybe I can just setup this PC as a Tor's Relay
> 
> Cite: 
> 
> However, Debian GNU/Linux stretch willnot run on 586 (Pentium) or earlier
> processors. 
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/i386/ch02s01.html.en
> +
> https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/i386/ch02s01.en.html

I was under the impression that i586 was a Debian invention for
kernels that had been termed i486, in order to prevent the impression
that they would run on 486 hardware (as they had done previously).

I would expect a 700MHz Pentium III to run a 686 kernel.
My 650MHz Pentium III (Coppermine) runs buster with the kernel in
linux-image-4.19.0-9-686-pae_4.19.118-2+deb10u1_i386.deb

My typical installation uses around 9GB, but that includes things like
TeX and LibreOffice. No DE though. I don't think you'd be running
anything like that, particularly with only 64MB memory (my video card
has half that). The first thing I did when I acquired mine (in 2003)
was to install 512MB of ECC and a bigger disk (30GB IIRC).
Nowadays, it makes a satisfactory file server.

Why do I keep mine? 1) Sentimentality, as it was the one on my work desk
when I retired. 2) Being a tower, it has room for up to 4 PATA drives.
The loaned Optiplex only holds one—after that, I'm down to an old PATA
caddy. 3) There's no WEEE here, so I'm not sure exactly how one gets
rid of it anyway.

BTW neither of these Pentiums looks like a museum piece to me, but
just so much junk, particulary if you upgrade it, or overwrite its
"authentic" OS. Unless you find a use for it, I guess the coucil
in your locality is obliged to dispose of it.

Cheers,
David.

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

#224374

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

 such old pc is for fun, not for practical useyou can install old debian, archive.debian.org
actually i've just bought old pc for 199 yuan(one US dollar is about 7 yuan)
it has 4G memory, intel E7500, 160G hard disk 
it hasn't monitor/mouse/keyboard
you can see how worthless such pc is

    On Sunday, July 5, 2020, 12:59:02 PM GMT+8, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:  
 
 On Sun 05 Jul 2020 at 04:35:49 (+0200), deloptes wrote:
> Davide Lombardo wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 July 2020 20:58:52 CEST Michael Stone wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 07:17:33PM +0200, Davide Lombardo wrote:
> >> >Good evening Debian User, I have found an old PC with these specs:
> >> >CPU: Pentium III 700 Mhz;
> >> >DRAM: 64 MB SDDR
> >> >GPU: RIVA TNT-2
> >> >HARDISK: 10 GB
> >> >FLOPPY DISK DRIVE
> >> >MODEM 56K
> >> >In the receipt is written 3,000 Lire (1,500) Euro of today...
> >> >Do you think I can install something different than the already
> >> >installed WIN98 system ?
> >> 
> >> If the goal is just to experiment then you could run an older version of
> >> debian. (I think there's not enough memory for the current install
> >> routine.) OpenBSD or NetBSD or a linux distribution oriented toward
> >> small systems would run. Nothing will give you a good experience with a
> >> GUI and web browser on that hardware. For practical purposes, you'd be
> >> better off with a $35 raspberry PI.
> > 
> > Maybe I can just setup this PC as a Tor's Relay
> 
> Cite: 
> 
> However, Debian GNU/Linux stretch willnot run on 586 (Pentium) or earlier
> processors. 
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/i386/ch02s01.html.en
> +
> https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/i386/ch02s01.en.html

I was under the impression that i586 was a Debian invention for
kernels that had been termed i486, in order to prevent the impression
that they would run on 486 hardware (as they had done previously).

I would expect a 700MHz Pentium III to run a 686 kernel.
My 650MHz Pentium III (Coppermine) runs buster with the kernel in
linux-image-4.19.0-9-686-pae_4.19.118-2+deb10u1_i386.deb

My typical installation uses around 9GB, but that includes things like
TeX and LibreOffice. No DE though. I don't think you'd be running
anything like that, particularly with only 64MB memory (my video card
has half that). The first thing I did when I acquired mine (in 2003)
was to install 512MB of ECC and a bigger disk (30GB IIRC).
Nowadays, it makes a satisfactory file server.

Why do I keep mine? 1) Sentimentality, as it was the one on my work desk
when I retired. 2) Being a tower, it has room for up to 4 PATA drives.
The loaned Optiplex only holds one—after that, I'm down to an old PATA
caddy. 3) There's no WEEE here, so I'm not sure exactly how one gets
rid of it anyway.

BTW neither of these Pentiums looks like a museum piece to me, but
just so much junk, particulary if you upgrade it, or overwrite its
"authentic" OS. Unless you find a use for it, I guess the coucil
in your locality is obliged to dispose of it.

Cheers,
David.

  

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

#224404

On Sun 05 Jul 2020 at 05:15:58 (+0000), Long Wind wrote:
> On Sunday, July 5, 2020, 12:59:02 PM GMT+8, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:  
> > Why do I keep mine? 1) Sentimentality, as it was the one on my work desk
> > when I retired. 2) Being a tower, it has room for up to 4 PATA drives.
> > The loaned Optiplex only holds one—after that, I'm down to an old PATA
> > caddy. 3) There's no WEEE here, so I'm not sure exactly how one gets
> > rid of it anyway.
> > 
> > BTW neither of these Pentiums looks like a museum piece to me, but
> > just so much junk, particulary if you upgrade it, or overwrite its
> > "authentic" OS. Unless you find a use for it, I guess the coucil
> > in your locality is obliged to dispose of it.
> 
>  such old pc is for fun, not for practical useyou can install old debian, archive.debian.org
> actually i've just bought old pc for 199 yuan(one US dollar is about 7 yuan)
> it has 4G memory, intel E7500, 160G hard disk 
> it hasn't monitor/mouse/keyboard

Buy? I've yet to buy a computer. All my machines are castoffs.

> you can see how worthless such pc is

Certainly true, financially. Valueless—not so clear.

Cheers,
David.

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

#224405

David Wright wrote:
>>> Why do I keep mine? 1) Sentimentality, as it was the one on my work desk
>>> when I retired. 2) Being a tower, it has room for up to 4 PATA drives.
>>> The loaned Optiplex only holds one—after that, I'm down to an old PATA
>>> caddy. 3) There's no WEEE here, so I'm not sure exactly how one gets
>>> rid of it anyway.

Some years ago, I tried ordering a box from a local custom-builder. The 
fact that the BIOS and/or FDC on it would not accept dual floppy drives 
was an annoyance. The fact that Xerox Ventura Publisher (DOS/GEM 
Edition) would not run on it *at all* was the show-stopper. It went back 
about 24 hours after I took delivery.

I've since learned that there is at least one custom-builder that 
specializes in DOS boxes optimized for legacy apps, but with my "spare 
parts" dual-boot, I haven't had a pressing need to determine whether 
their boxes will run VPGEM (and they are not certain themselves).

--
JHHL

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

#224390

David Wright wrote:

> I was under the impression that i586 was a Debian invention for
> kernels that had been termed i486, in order to prevent the impression
> that they would run on 486 hardware (as they had done previously).
> 
> I would expect a 700MHz Pentium III to run a 686 kernel.
> My 650MHz Pentium III (Coppermine) runs buster with the kernel in
> linux-image-4.19.0-9-686-pae_4.19.118-2+deb10u1_i386.deb
> 

I am not sure - this is what I am saying with those links.

In wheezy

Nearly all x86-based (IA-32) processors still in use in personal computers
are supported, including all varieties of Intel's "Pentium" series. 
https://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/i386/ch02s01.html.en

But this statement is missing later (especially the last part regarding
Pentium series)

How I know this - some years ago I had to start building kernel for Geode,
because it is i586. And reading around noticed the notification that older
models are not supported by default debian kernel.

This means that OP has to build kernel to run it. In such case I debootstrap
debian and install the custom kernel.

> My typical installation uses around 9GB, but that includes things like
> TeX and LibreOffice. No DE though. I don't think you'd be running
> anything like that, particularly with only 64MB memory (my video card
> has half that). The first thing I did when I acquired mine (in 2003)
> was to install 512MB of ECC and a bigger disk (30GB IIRC).
> Nowadays, it makes a satisfactory file server.
> 
> Why do I keep mine? 1) Sentimentality, as it was the one on my work desk
> when I retired. 2) Being a tower, it has room for up to 4 PATA drives.
> The loaned Optiplex only holds one—after that, I'm down to an old PATA
> caddy. 3) There's no WEEE here, so I'm not sure exactly how one gets
> rid of it anyway.
> 
> BTW neither of these Pentiums looks like a museum piece to me, but
> just so much junk, particulary if you upgrade it, or overwrite its
> "authentic" OS. Unless you find a use for it, I guess the coucil
> in your locality is obliged to dispose of it.

As people suggested it is not worth the power it consumes. For 35-50$ you
have a low power device with more computing power, but of course you decide
what to do with your hardware and electricity bills. 

regards

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

#224397

On Sun, 2020-07-05 at 12:06 +0200, deloptes wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> 
> > I was under the impression that i586 was a Debian invention for
> > kernels that had been termed i486, in order to prevent the impression
> > that they would run on 486 hardware (as they had done previously).
> > 
> > I would expect a 700MHz Pentium III to run a 686 kernel.
> > My 650MHz Pentium III (Coppermine) runs buster with the kernel in
> > linux-image-4.19.0-9-686-pae_4.19.118-2+deb10u1_i386.deb
> > 
> 
> I am not sure - this is what I am saying with those links.
> 
> In wheezy
> 
> Nearly all x86-based (IA-32) processors still in use in personal computers
> are supported, including all varieties of Intel's "Pentium" series. 
> https://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/i386/ch02s01.html.en
> 
> But this statement is missing later (especially the last part regarding
> Pentium series)
> 
> How I know this - some years ago I had to start building kernel for Geode,
> because it is i586. And reading around noticed the notification that older
> models are not supported by default debian kernel.
> 
> This means that OP has to build kernel to run it.

Except that in David's post you quoted, he said he's running a Buster
kernel on his Pentium III (same CPU series as the OP said he had).

Also, the release notes for Buster mention in section 5.1.10. that
WebKit2GTK required SSE2 support so will crash on Pentium III or Geode.
It also says 'The first update of webkit2gtk in buster is expected to
restore support for these systems'

So it's obvious that Buster in general works on Pentium III, and the OP
can expect it to install and work if they want to try. No custom
kernels needed.

-- 
Tixy

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

#224399

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

 
but it has only 64M memoryand buster needs 400M
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s05.en.html    On Sunday, July 5, 2020, 11:04:08 AM EDT, Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> wrote:  
 
 On Sun, 2020-07-05 at 12:06 +0200, deloptes wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> 
> > I was under the impression that i586 was a Debian invention for
> > kernels that had been termed i486, in order to prevent the impression
> > that they would run on 486 hardware (as they had done previously).
> > 
> > I would expect a 700MHz Pentium III to run a 686 kernel.
> > My 650MHz Pentium III (Coppermine) runs buster with the kernel in
> > linux-image-4.19.0-9-686-pae_4.19.118-2+deb10u1_i386.deb
> > 
> 
> I am not sure - this is what I am saying with those links.
> 
> In wheezy
> 
> Nearly all x86-based (IA-32) processors still in use in personal computers
> are supported, including all varieties of Intel's "Pentium" series. 
> https://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/i386/ch02s01.html.en
> 
> But this statement is missing later (especially the last part regarding
> Pentium series)
> 
> How I know this - some years ago I had to start building kernel for Geode,
> because it is i586. And reading around noticed the notification that older
> models are not supported by default debian kernel.
> 
> This means that OP has to build kernel to run it.

Except that in David's post you quoted, he said he's running a Buster
kernel on his Pentium III (same CPU series as the OP said he had).

Also, the release notes for Buster mention in section 5.1.10. that
WebKit2GTK required SSE2 support so will crash on Pentium III or Geode.
It also says 'The first update of webkit2gtk in buster is expected to
restore support for these systems'

So it's obvious that Buster in general works on Pentium III, and the OP
can expect it to install and work if they want to try. No custom
kernels needed.

-- 
Tixy

  

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

#224403

On Sun 05 Jul 2020 at 12:06:12 (+0200), deloptes wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> 
> > I was under the impression that i586 was a Debian invention for
> > kernels that had been termed i486, in order to prevent the impression
> > that they would run on 486 hardware (as they had done previously).
> > 
> > I would expect a 700MHz Pentium III to run a 686 kernel.
> > My 650MHz Pentium III (Coppermine) runs buster with the kernel in
> > linux-image-4.19.0-9-686-pae_4.19.118-2+deb10u1_i386.deb
> 
> I am not sure - this is what I am saying with those links.
> 
> In wheezy
> 
> Nearly all x86-based (IA-32) processors still in use in personal computers
> are supported, including all varieties of Intel's "Pentium" series. 
> https://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/i386/ch02s01.html.en
> 
> But this statement is missing later (especially the last part regarding
> Pentium series)
> 
> How I know this - some years ago I had to start building kernel for Geode,
> because it is i586. And reading around noticed the notification that older
> models are not supported by default debian kernel.
> 
> This means that OP has to build kernel to run it. In such case I debootstrap
> debian and install the custom kernel.

The lone word "Pentium" can be confusing in this context, as it covers
many lines of processors stretching back 25 years. The OP wrote at the
start of the OP:

   "Good evening Debian User, I have found an old PC with these specs:
    CPU: Pentium III 700 Mhz;"

The only Pentium III older than my own is the Katmai, and it could
only be cranked up to 600MHz. By the time jessie was released, my
Coppermine was the oldest processor I still ran, so I didn't check
whether Katmai, which had design compromises related to its Pentium II
heritage, fell below the bar.

I don't know whether all III models, particularly the mobiles,
support pae, but there are still non-pae kernels in Debian.
My worry is not the processor but the amount of memory. It might
be easy to pick up more via the web.

> As people suggested it is not worth the power it consumes. For 35-50$ you
> have a low power device with more computing power, but of course you decide
> what to do with your hardware and electricity bills. 

I can't speak for the OP. My own PC consumes ~50mA idling, ~300mA
when busy. That's without the monitor, which is normally switched off
(hard switch) because I use ssh. (Those were measured at 220V.)

Most of the time in summer the PC too is switched off (hard),
with 80s ambient temperature. In winter, I leave it on more,
as any warmth is appreciated. (OK, I'll grant you, it's consuming
electricity rather than gas, increasing the financial cost.)

As for buying more computing power, what would I use it for—I already
have a laptop and desktop (both i5, 4 processors) that provide ample.

Cheers,
David.

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

#224414

Hi,

David Wright wrote:
> > > My 650MHz Pentium III (Coppermine) [...]
> consumes ~50mA idling, ~300mA when busy. [...] at 220V

11 to 66 Watt. That's unusual for a full size PC of that time.
I knew some which issued 10 Watts already by noise power and could
heat a small sized office room in winter.

Google ...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_III
22.41 Watt of TDP. That's about the same as with one 3.5 GHz Xeon core.
But i'd say the Xeon core is about 20 times more powerful (64 vs. 32 bit,
factor 5 of frequency, two hyperthreads).

I am still astonished about the ratio of 1 : 6 of idle : busy.
Some other component besides the CPU must be very good in saving power
when idle. And the idle situation must be really boring ...


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

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

#224705

On Sun 05 Jul 2020 at 23:44:09 (+0200), Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> > > > My 650MHz Pentium III (Coppermine) [...]
> > consumes ~50mA idling, ~300mA when busy. [...] at 220V
> 
> 11 to 66 Watt. That's unusual for a full size PC of that time.
> I knew some which issued 10 Watts already by noise power and could
> heat a small sized office room in winter.

Sorry, "idling" is probably not the best term—I extracted the line
from a spreadsheet of power consumptions for a multitude of different
electronics and electrical appliances. For this PC, it means switched
on, but with only the NIC waiting for a wakeup call. So the disks, fan
and, I assume, the CPU, are not running. The ability to wake it up is
not something I currently use on this machine because of its
convenient location; though after shutdown, I don't rush to turn off
the wall switch.

> Google ...
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_III
> 22.41 Watt of TDP. That's about the same as with one 3.5 GHz Xeon core.
> But i'd say the Xeon core is about 20 times more powerful (64 vs. 32 bit,
> factor 5 of frequency, two hyperthreads).

Sure. But my Pentium III's CPU (perhaps not the OP's) is not the issue.
Rather, it's the ability of the mobo and box to host several PATA disks.

Here for comparison are some figures for a 2013-vintage Dell AiO 3011,
which is permanently on at the wall except when big storms threaten.
It runs off a dirty great brick supplying, I assume, the usual 19V. These
very approximate mA currents are obviously measured on the 110V side:

Powering on at wall switch              200 two second surge
Power connected, waiting for NIC wakeup  30
Powering on with its switch             350 one second surge
Running, at login prompt                200-250
Unlocking encrypted /home               500 one second surge
Starting X                              300
Running X                               200-250
Starting firefox                        300-325
Compiling the linux kernel              I no longer do it :)

Cheers,
David.

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

#224706

David Wright wrote:

> Sorry, "idling" is probably not the best term—I extracted the line
> from a spreadsheet of power consumptions for a multitude of different
> electronics and electrical appliances. For this PC, it means switched
> on, but with only the NIC waiting for a wakeup call. So the disks, fan
> and, I assume, the CPU, are not running. The ability to wake it up is
> not something I currently use on this machine because of its
> convenient location; though after shutdown, I don't rush to turn off
> the wall switch.

Idle is understood, when the CPU is doing nothing (but the PC is fully
running)

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

#224707

On 7/11/20 7:07 PM, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 05 Jul 2020 at 23:44:09 (+0200), Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>> David Wright wrote:
>>>>> My 650MHz Pentium III (Coppermine) [...]
>>> consumes ~50mA idling, ~300mA when busy. [...] at 220V
>>
>> 11 to 66 Watt. That's unusual for a full size PC of that time.
>> I knew some which issued 10 Watts already by noise power and could
>> heat a small sized office room in winter.
> 
> Sorry, "idling" is probably not the best term—I extracted the line
> from a spreadsheet of power consumptions for a multitude of different
> electronics and electrical appliances. For this PC, it means switched
> on, but with only the NIC waiting for a wakeup call. So the disks, fan
> and, I assume, the CPU, are not running. The ability to wake it up is
> not something I currently use on this machine because of its
> convenient location; though after shutdown, I don't rush to turn off
> the wall switch.

The word you are looking for is probably "standby".

Mark

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

#224377

On 5/7/20 1:50 am, Davide Lombardo wrote:
> Maybe I can just setup this PC as a Tor's Relay


Again, the Pi would likely be better



-- 

Keith Bainbridge

keithrbau@gmail.com

0447 667468

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web