PDA

View Full Version : Old computers and their OS



mantermite
04-07-2006, 10:17 AM
I am going to be making some old computers from spare parts and was wondering what should be put on them? Is it a good opportunity to set up some Linux distros and run them as part of a network I'm developing? This is purely a test as I am running MS Server 2003 demo, and most of the machines (bar the server) will be 500 MHz and under :D .
What are some distros with minimal specs but still have a good GUI as I am not up to much with Linux (yet). I have Suse 10.1, Fedora 5 and Mandriva but they all need a few amount of resources.

Just a note, any notice that Vista seems to inherted a lot of user functions and styles similar to ac OSX and Linux.
:nerd:

techiekid
04-07-2006, 11:27 AM
Just whack windows 3.1 on them...

Or you could install slackware (a linux distro) which runs well on slow pcs.

Morgenmuffel
04-07-2006, 11:33 AM
Vector linux is probably a bit more user friendly (couls also look at DSL linux), and as for ms operating systems NT4, or 95 should be fine for low specced machines

techiekid
04-07-2006, 11:52 AM
you could proably get win 2000 on there, perhaps win xp if theyre 500mhz although can depend on ram too

gibler
04-07-2006, 12:36 PM
Debian GNU/Linux with just basic X Windows (i.e. leave out KDE or Gnome)...

Graham L
04-07-2006, 02:24 PM
Just look for an older version of a distribution. I did have troubles once trying to install Red Hat 7.2 on a 486Dx33 once. That was because the installer insisted on installing lots of things I explicitly told it not to, and I didn't want to add a disk bigger than the 350MB one. But it would have run OK. ;)

That machine, and my first Linux box (a 386SX20 with 6MB ram and a 40MB disk) are still running the 1995 release of Slackware (2.0.9 kernel). :cool:

A lot of the bloat on the new releases is a direct consequence of the attempts to make them "user-friendly", and worst of all, "like Windows".

tweak'e
04-07-2006, 05:55 PM
biggest problem with the older pc is how much ram you can fit into them. if 256 or more you could get w2k to run or many of the linux disto's. otherwise 98se or 95.

Myth
04-07-2006, 06:55 PM
I have Gentoo installed on a 466Mhz Celeron based computer with KDE. (128MB RAM shared)
Granted I did turn most of KDE's effects off, but it runs okay
Windows 98 would be the only other OS I would try on that machine

vinref
04-07-2006, 08:34 PM
Do not install old versions of Linux distributions. It is a dumb idea. They have updated them for good reason, chiefly amongst them security and stability. Lack of features, and severe compatibility problems with newer hardware and applications will turn you off Linux for good. Support will also be scant.

Avoid distros that use KDE and Gnome. They have large requirements for ram and hd space. Some of these are slower than XP. Due to security problems and large requirements for prophylactic applications, avoid Microsoft OSs.

The best Linux distros are the basic modular ones such as Debian and Slackware. They do not have a "look" or a branding because they are meant to be whatever you make them (cf. Fedora, Mandriva, -buntu etc). That is, you build them up bit by bit. They will also run like the wind on a 500MHz/128Mb machine. Although they can be a handful to install, configure and use properly, it is the best way to learn Linux. Documentation for Debian is very good.

TGoddard
04-07-2006, 11:01 PM
Wrong tab :waughh:

JJJJJ
05-07-2006, 06:47 AM
.
Although Windows 3.1 is older than Windows XP it still boots faster... Funny thing, that.

Absolute rubbish. Last time I used 3.1 boot time was in the 2/3 minute range.
XP boots in 23 seconds. (I've just checked it).

mantermite
05-07-2006, 09:06 AM
Looks like Debian distros are they thing I'm looking for. And DSL (Damn Small Linux), just to see what they have in it.

I'm honestly not considering something like 95 or 3.1 too old for my liking.

Thanks for your help, resources shouldn't be too bad as these computers will have at least 192 sdram a yamaha sound card and some graphics card. So they can take a bit of hardship.
Win98 runs fine on them, so we shall see. Cheers folks.

techiekid
05-07-2006, 02:36 PM
Although Windows 3.1 is older than Windows XP it still boots faster... Funny thing, that.

Absolute rubbish. Last time I used 3.1 boot time was in the 2/3 minute range.
XP boots in 23 seconds. (I've just checked it).
Actually...
My 2.01 ghz pc with 512 meg ram boots xp in around 50 seconds but takes around 2 minuites to load fully...
Windows 3.1 on a 100mhz pc with 8mb ram (compaq contura 430c) takes around a miunuite if scandisk dosent run.


to run xp you only need this:


PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended


128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)


1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*


Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor


CD-ROM or DVD drive


Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

your pc might be able to andle it

JJJJJ
05-07-2006, 03:07 PM
[QUOTE=techiekid]Actually...
My 2.01 ghz pc with 512 meg ram boots xp in around 50 seconds but takes around 2 minuites to load fully...
Windows 3.1 on a 100mhz pc with 8mb ram (compaq contura 430c) takes around a miunuite if scandisk dosent run.


My Athlon64 x 2, 4200+ with 2 gigs of ram fully loads in 35 seconds. It would load quicker if Nod32 didn't have a nose around before router is loaded.

A PC Direct DX-2 50 with 8 megs and no modem or anti-virus, that I once had, loaded in a fast 3 and a half minutes. (And it was sold as The Dream Machine).

pctek
05-07-2006, 03:31 PM
to run xp you only need this:


PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed

128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended
Aha. MSs recommendation. No doubt you could but it would run like a crippled sloth.

JJJJJ
05-07-2006, 03:45 PM
Aha. MSs recommendation. No doubt you could but it would run like a crippled sloth.

How does a crippled sloth run? Don't you dare say "with great difficulty" or I'll scream. :D :D