Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Name: Hmmm
i doubt to run even redhat version 5 on 486 machine, u can try only by customizing your application what to be loaded but ...
i doubt it will..- atul
0 
I got rid of my old 486 a while ago ,
still have a version of linux on a cd that would work,,, ( had tried it ) don't know much else to tell you now,,Still keeping that old of a computer around?
I had mine with win 98 and , granted it worked well enough , even with the 10 gig drive and the drive overlay software , to support the Large ! size hard drive,
Could try it out and let us know,,, be interesting to hear about
MSI 845e mb 1 gb ram and a p4 2.4n running fedora 7 xp ,win 2000 advanced server and win 98 SE alot to learn and I know so little !!!!
0
There are plenty of older and current distros that will work. I ran it on a 386. We still run it on some old P1 200mhz.
I read it wrong and answer it wrong too. So get off my case you peanut.
0
Well I've installed Red Hat 6.0 and have now installed Mandrake 6.1 (the edition distributed by Macmillian Software. Out of the two Mandrake is a lot better. Things like setting up the nic, network protocols, samba, video(800x600 8bit) were better than RH 6 even though it's uses RH 6 as it's base. Just copied and edited a smb.conf I used on my Red Hat 7.3 box, which runs on a P200mmx.
Now the Presario CDS is unusual for a 486 in that it is capable of supporting 64megs of ram and larger hard drives(it has a 2.4 gig in it at the moment) without overlay software.
I'm using Window Maker as my default window manager.
Here's a screen shot to prove it can be done-
http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/...I was quite surprised how well KDE 1.1.2 ran too. This the default enviroment but too bloated for my tastes ;).
Thought I'd try Enlightenment out-
http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/...
0
I just last week, I installed damn small version 4.1 on a compaq deskpro with a pentium 75 mhz with 40mb of ram and a 800mb hd drive.
Version 4.2 is out now and looks very good.
How much ram does it have? Even had enough room on the drive to setup a swap partition.larry
0
Seems like good going Larry. I'm not too bothered with the latest and greatest as long as it works.
Seems weird having a gui *.nx based 486. Deli Linux could be the go too. http://www.delilinux.de/
It's interesting to note that Mandrake 6.1 isn't even ment to run on a 486 according to this article-
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,1...
0
thanks for the deli link Hmmm. always looking for distros that run on old hardware. I downloaded the iso but, its not a live cd, boots right to the command line, where you can install from. I'll have to did out an old hard drive later to try it. I suddenly have an urge for a corned beef on rye, later.
larry
0
I used to like zipslack too. Ran on a fat virual file system.
http://www.slackware.com/zipslack/s...
I read it wrong and answer it wrong too. So get off my case you peanut.
0
Bit of an update. The first install of MD 6.x was an "install everthing" effort and took about 1.4gigs on the hdd. I decided to do a second install, selecting only what I needed, using "expert". Only 500megs of stuff was installed.Its sharing files, internet etc just fine.
0
I'm working on getting Linux to run on a very old IBM PS/2 from 1992, Intel 80486SX processor, 100mb SCSI hard drive. Now that i have Internet access from where the computer is, I might have better luck. currently the biggest problem I'm having is that this computer has no math coprocessor, so I get kernel panics because of this.
0
PS/2s were interesting peices of kit for their day. You may be able to fit an overdrive chip in it. Another option is compile a kernal with co-processor emulation.
0
Worse yet, it might be MCA.
You may have to go back to the basics. That is build your system from sources.
See also bsd.
I read it wrong and answer it wrong too. So get off my case you peanut.
0
You could try minix.
I used to run Linux on a 10Mb 386 with a 387 co-processor. The window manager was a bit strange, especially on a 640x480 VGA monitor. Spent a lot of time scrolling all over the place. Compilations were really slow but X was surprisingly fast.
Doom was quite good as were most of the games.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
