What is Digg?80 Comments
- rmd34, on 12/22/2007, -1/+105Not a good list. The organization of the list was based on distro size instead of an OS's ability to run on older hardware (so the title is completely wrong)..
QNX, for example, was not listed. This was (and is) an OS that gained a cult status many years ago for running a complete and viable GUI system with Browser from a 1.44mb disk. I can vouch that it ran without issues on a 386 with 4mbs of memory.
Linux and BSD systems running strickly from the command-line would do very well on older hardware. There's alot of power and tools available on command-line only BSD/Linux systems, including some pretty good text-based browsers. Not certain how low the support is for CPUs in the 8086, 286 mark.
Linux/BSD + GUI - more difficult to call. 486 (w/o math co-processor) might be the lowest *effective* limit with distros such as DSL and PuppyLinux. Not even sure what the lower memory limits might be. Maybe someone can verify lower limits here.
Of course, there's DOS (FreeDOS recommended) - though a bit dated you can still put together a very usable and fast system. DOS tools are spread out a bit. Even though the FreeDOS guys have put together a bunch of useful tools - there are still a ton of other tools (mostly freeware, some commercial) that can get a DOS system fairly close to modern specs. Not matter where you put DOS - it'll be fast on even the lowest hardware but could work well on some modern systems (usb, ethernet, etc... though a bit behind on browsers with Arachne and Lynx leading the list).
I'm not certain that MenuetOS (listed on the page) is advanced enough to be viable yet but it *will* run on lower end hardware.
In the end, as users... we want the best hardware and the *fastest/capable* OS. Running a few of the Linux distros strickly from DDR (such as DSL), for example, is an amazing experience and where we should be given the incredible hardware available to consumers.
There are alot of capable OSes out there (including advancements in the cell phone, pda arena that have not translated to the Desktop) but for Desktop computing - most users are still stuck with bloated OSes that severely reduce their investment in hardware. Microsoft Vista is a perfect example of this.
Thankfully, the work done on the Linux/BSD camps (as well as continuing work with other commercial (QNX, OS/2) and experimental OSes) continue to provide choice for the consumer. - mllawso, on 12/22/2007, -1/+57You kids and your minicomputers. Back in my day, we kept our computers in rooms, where they belong.
- Oronar, on 12/22/2007, -2/+44You made me laugh. Then I had a horribly realization, you may be serious...
- McMaster88, on 12/22/2007, -2/+27You fail.
- Dylson, on 12/22/2007, -1/+24It's ok, I think he is new to the interwebs. *sigh.
- springo, on 12/23/2007, -0/+19"Operating systems for old computers" differs from "Operating systems to make computers old"
- AceofSpades19, on 12/22/2007, -0/+15because Windows Vista can run on a 486
/sarcasm - CLShortFuse, on 12/22/2007, -0/+14I was at some place and they were using Window 95 on such an old computer. I like what Microsoft was "trying" to do with Vista, but the main problem with Vista is performance. All their OS upgrades are very well featured but Microsoft doesn't care too much about performance. They had to with Windows XP because they were trying to kill off the 9x kernel. They had to say that XP could be faster than 98SE.
But I have to say linux. Linux is so well planned for low specs. It's just not Ubuntu, but the core kernel itself. If your 133mhz Linksys WRT54G can run be your wireless access point and router (and also run linux) why can't you 300mhz Pentium II do the same? You can find any junk computer that you abandoned (the Windows 95 computer I was mentioning) and make it a DHCP, NAT, DNS, NIST server for a small 5-10 computer network. - ccheath, on 12/22/2007, -0/+11how many watts of power does that pull versus a wrt54g?
just something to think about - z00k, on 12/22/2007, -2/+13The list doesn't have one of my favorite distributions sadly...
BlueFlops
http://blueflops.sourceforge.net/ - sumguy231, on 12/22/2007, -1/+12I don't know about you, but all my computers are in rooms, regardless of size.
- speedyrev, on 12/22/2007, -0/+10Back in MY day, we just counted stacks of rocks. My kids came in with that crazy abacus computer. I still don't understand it.
- deadbaby, on 12/22/2007, -1/+11Iif someone can't follow a few simple steps to install they probably should give the computer to a grown up who can handle it.
- warpbackspin, on 12/22/2007, -2/+10Ah, you mean "microcomputers". Computers based on microprocessors are microcomputers. Minicomputers are much bigger. PDP-11s and VAXen are minicomputers.
- doublej42, on 12/22/2007, -0/+8I had to comment just because I still have a laptop that runs CP/M , you say "old" I think punch cards. Remember when graphics where 8 lights?
- dawnraid101, on 12/22/2007, -2/+10isnt XP an under 700mb OS????
- AceofSpades19, on 12/22/2007, -0/+7Linux is technically a kernel, not an operating system, so each distro is technically a different operating system
- kurtwinter, on 12/22/2007, -0/+7Nothing here for 6502 or 6510 processors!
- crossmr, on 12/22/2007, -0/+6Its worth mentioning that the original DOS (I started on MSDOS 3.2) was much smaller than the FreeDOS they're listing. I only had a 20 MB hard drive on my first machine, so there'd be no way we'd put an 11 MB OS on it. I believe it was just 2 or 3 floppies, so around 700k.
- doctechnical, on 12/22/2007, -0/+6Your car doesn't have a computer? Wow, an antique!
- mossblaser, on 12/23/2007, -0/+5Its ubuntu fan fest because... oh wait two out of the many distros mentioned were ubuntu based. yeh sorry - that ubuntu fanboyism is just so OTT.
- andrewbash, on 06/11/2009, -0/+5I have to agree, I recently installed Fluxbuntu on an old Pentium 2 and the thing flies. It's not real fancy, but I made a nice Fluxbox theme and it doesn't look half bad.
- GibbieGibGiblet, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5what? no CP/M?
- winmywii, on 12/22/2007, -1/+6With nlite you can bring XP down to 90mb if you want. You should try, I think I have my install disk down to about 250-300mb. Check it out at www.nliteos.com
There is also a vista version in which you can fit vista ultimate on a single CD (not dvd). Of course you have to remove components that you will not be using. - stalefries, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5How much swap?
/I kid - gquaglia, on 12/22/2007, -1/+6Got you to look, didn't it.
- sx66gns, on 12/22/2007, -3/+7Fluxbuntu , the best out of the lot , hands down.
www.fluxbuntu.org - inactive, on 12/22/2007, -1/+5Try OpenBSD. I am almost positive that it will give you one of if not the smallest footprints available even today.
- andrewbash, on 06/11/2009, -0/+4Just slipstream your own Windows disc, eliminate everything but what you need.
http://www.nliteos.com/
^^^^^
Good tool - arbulus, on 12/23/2007, -1/+5I thought you had to be at least 13 to sign up here.
- tupperbacharach, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3In the "Not Linux But Worth Mentioning" category, no Contiki?: http://www.sics.se/contiki/
Contiki runs on as little as 42 kilobytes. - Myztry, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Not Linux but worth mentioning. The Commodore Amiga (1985+).
The pre-emptive multitasking GUI OS API was under 256k uncompressed.
The (optional) Workbench was a small part of a 880k floppy.
Many program didn't load the Workbench, and accessed the full features of the GUI OS without the Desktop Manager. - inactive, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Those are called "classics" now. ;)
- JaqMs, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3There's always tinyXP, too. It's a little over 500 mb and it almost boots faster on a 233 mhz Compaq Armada with 96 mb RAM than my P4 desktop with 512 RAM (regular XP). It handles Firefox and Open Office quite well.
- GreatDrok, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3OpenBSD is very good on older hardware including support for architectures that Linux doesn't support. I used it years back on a SPARC1 box because Linux and Solaris were both unusable on it. With OpenBSD it performed as well as it had with SunOS 4.1 and included everything a typical UNIX has. Very stable system. Of course, it does feel a bit old on the install side but if you follow the instructions the performance and security are worth it.
- aringarosa, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3A comparison of Linux distros by size of OS, type of system (CPU and RAM), and how fast they operate standard open-source software would be handy.
Does anyone know if this has been done, and, if so, where can we look at it? - bentheo, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4the list would be more helpful if it were arranged by memory requirements. even if it is 50mb, i would still probably use a full cd for it.
- mrynit, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3GEOS for Commodore
- bluzen, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2I prefer to look at a blank screen and imagine what could have been. Apple Rhapsody, Microsoft Cairo, Sun Spring or any other OS with a true Micro kernel. It is about has productive. On a serious note, the articles does seem to give some good advice, though it is missing the various BSDs. It is a Linux site after all. Nice read.
- mossblaser, on 12/23/2007, -1/+3Fluxbuntu on my old P1 128mb laptop is horrible: boots slowly and runs slowly but on the other hand it runs as well as any other OS on it of equivalent power. I have it showing various CLI based tickers and other btis I made in python (I know rat poison would be better but fluxbox+eterm is simply easier.)
- tybris, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2http://www.minix3.org/
- BrotherGA2, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2This was an informative, well thought out comment. Thanks.
Your point about bloated OS's reducing the investment in hardware was particularly a good one.
If you look at the ASUS Eee PC, you can see that a good computing experience can be had with (a simplistic) version of Linux by an end-user who just wants to do basic tasks, whilst that hardware being quite underpowered compared to today's Windows Vista boxes. - inactive, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2I used linux with X on a 386/20 with 4mb of ram as an X terminal without a problem. It took a while to start up, but it was fine when running apps remotely.
- beaverlakenc, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Nothing Can Replace RM/COS . . . Ryan McFarland COBOL Operating System. . . . man that OS was fast I worked with RM/COS up until 2001 (yes it made past 2000 with a patch)
http://dictionary.die.net/rmcos/
COBOL Rocks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL - likedude15, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Now If only I kept my old Tandy Laptop....
- blipblopblip, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1NetBSD
- inactive, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1I want to see a beginner working with Gentoo.
- edersch, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1The best way to recycle an old PC by far!
- chingy1788, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1New software with new features will be slower than old software with no new features
for example
CryEngine1 vs CryEngine2
Running on CryEngine1 Recommended system
its going to fly with CryEngine1, but might not even Run CryEngine2 - UnstableMind, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1My personal favorite is LEAF (Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall) a whole 2.4 MB!
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is