I'll 2nd this ^^. I have a Sony Vaio P2-400 w/ 256Megs of Ram and NeoMagic integrated graphics. It does take a rather long time to boot, but who cares if you leave it up all the time? Once up, it runs Xfce and KDE just fine in Slackware 12.1 for what the majority of Windows users do these days - get email, trade photos, play card and flash games, and go to FaceBook. The speed of those is far more dependent on the quality of ISP connection than CPU and RAM.

http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/...ers/2014-04-08

I'd worry more about having my personal info gathered via Hospital records than a store or bank transaction.

Biggest sinkhole around as far as I can tell. At least when I tune bikes. I am offline and no customer records involved what so ever.

Hi,
Good to hear. KDE on a 450 Mhz Pentium and that low memory, I would think 'fine' would be over exaggeration. Even though you had 3x the recommended memory, processing would not be as good as today's or recent hardware. Glad your experience on the 98 class machine met your needs.

Try to put a modern Gnu/Linux on that '98' class machine? It would not be a current Slackware and have the same experience as you did with Slackware 13.0. Not saying you could not install Slackware but that legacy hardware would not function as good as modern or even probably be configurable.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

I read somewhere that 95% of the ATMs in the USA are running XP. Hm... interesting, I think I'll put my money in a sock under the bed!

The Royal Navy went for Windows for Warships back in 2009, I wonder if they've upgraded?

Should we be worrying about the crisis in Ukraine or whether Mr Putin uses Windows XP to control his big red button?

Play Bonny!

Don't be silly. If any big red button anywhere ran on Windoze the world would have already ended. The fact that we are alive means that big red buttons do NOT run Windoze.

Whew! I can't thank you enough for allaying my fears.

PLay Bonny!

Hope you don't mind if I reverse the order... just easier for a proper response.

While it is certain that hardware has undergone massive improvements and some of them do affect speed (not just size or pretties) one major advantage of Linux is that the kernel has not tossed out support for older hardware even remotely on the level of Windows. Graphics manufacturers have but that primarily affects those who choose proprietary drivers and want 3D Acceleration.

Hardware doesn't grow in an integrated way. An example is that we got SATA v3 when no drive can yet saturate v2. We have PCI Express and not even 4 of the top of the line gaming graphics cards can saturate that bus.

What this means is that a Win98 era box, or at least those that support close to 1G RAM, can easily be made to feel just as comfortable on Linux, outside of 3D work, as most modern boxes. This is partly because we have yet to fully utilize all the improvements. Another aspect of this you may have felt already yourself. When hard drives doubled in speed, despite the fact they are the weakest link, your system didn't feel twice as fast. In most cases 10%-20% or so in feel is a big leap. So the leap from old to new isn't as great as one might think. Also, if the kernel supports it, odds are that it is configurable.


So let me venture a guess.... you stopped using KDE after a month on KDE4? and started using Xfce or Fluxbox or something, right? Am I close? If so you have a lot of company and it is completely understandable that you think this way about KDE....understandable, but no longer correct. It is not hard to make Xfce have a heavier footprint than KDE, and conversely, it isn't difficult to make KDE have a lighter footprint than Xfce.

Hi,

I feel that a common '98' class machine was not even close to 1GB. You were lucky to have 256MB on most if that. What size HDD will that old 98 machine have in it? Problems here? Think so.
Typical system for Windows 98 requirements as recommended by Microsoft;
So you say that a 98 class machine would run with a modern Gnu/Linux. Rather broad and possible if you tune down or use a minimal system and the Modern Gnu/Linux install size is minimized.

Sure more memory the better. Processors really did not support extended memory without using specialized memory cards for that period along with drivers. Add to that necessary hard disk storage. You would now be putting more into the hardware to get antiquated systems to cripple along. Windows 98 class machines did use either MFM, RLL at first then EIDE & IDE for the OS. SCSI was to expensive as a hardware option with 98 but doable for more space. IDE & SATA were starting to be used in newer motherboard 98 systems and with Win/Xp release.

As to making a KDE lighter, no argument there. Still the Graphics adapters for that period are no where near the capabilities of new equipment. Heck, the buss speeds were/are slow as molasses. Plus moving to a better GPU would be limited to the ISA buss for early 98 machines & SVGA. Windows 98 did introduce PCI, cardbuss and pcmcia but that too would depend on the original equipment configuration. You would then have options for better (limited GPU) graphics if the option were available for the system to be configured.

You win, recommend that 98 class windows machine in that it can be used in a modern environment. Ya, maybe a simple terminal but then you would still be limited to the early ISA,PCI available Ethernet cards and SVGA. And to get the proper drivers for that 'LEGACY' Hardware.
Sure the kernel has not dropped much but were the developers even aware of that Old legacy hardware to develop the driver/module?

Let alone the BIOS restrictions for ISO block reads for a modern Gnu/Linux for that limited Boot CDROM(if at all). You may be able to get a PXE boot to allow a install but you would still be limited to available hardware, drivers & BIOS. Maybe use a small root boot for the 3.5 floppy since modern kernels will not fit on the 3.5 disk media.

You could use something like bootdisks for 98. Hopefully the IDE drivers for the CDROM will be supported. You had better have a means to support a bigger hard disk for that modern Gnu/Linux install in that old 98 machine. You could use the latest Windows 98 class machine and then possibly install a period Gnu/Linux on that system that would not need much tweaking. But still not a modern/current Gnu/Linux.

You could always move the Hard disk over to another machine to move files and build a install. Still to much trouble to get antiquated/antique hardware to hopefully usable system environmental state.

I've wasted more time than it's worth.

My statements stand, to much trouble for if and when you can get a modern Gnu/Linux installed to a limited Windows 98 Class machine. If at all!

Not worth the time or effort to have a sub-class machine that will require loads of man hours to possibly get a modern Linux working on it. Maybe novelty for someone but not me. Too much trouble, been there done that.

Enough said!

@onebuck

I do agree that it is more economical for many to just move up in hardware, especially since it is possible to get Core 2 Duo Lenova Laptops on eBay for ~$100 now because of Windows escalating minimum requirements.

However I do take issue with your estimation of common Win98 boxes. No way were MFM, RLL, even common on Windows 3.11, let alone Win95 and not anywhere close for Win98, at least not in my experience in the US and I made a nice living repairing lots of these boxes. Please recall that Win98 had a good 3 year run and hardware changed a lot and many upgraded mid-stream.

My main Win95 box (in 1998) was an Asus P3-BF which had 512MB RAM, although it supported up to 1GB. I didn't get Win98 until SE rolled around at the end of 1998 and by then I had installed a Slotket which allowed Socket 370 CPUs up to 1.7GHz. In 1999 I had a 1GHz in it. By early 2001 I had the 1.7GHz model and by February 2002 I dual booted 98 and XP. Also in 1999 I installed a Promise Ultra-TX 66 IDE accelerator card to support the fastest IDE drives out. By 2001 I had a 128MB AGP 4X graphics card, looking forward to a new motherboard, since the P3-BF only supported 2x.

I could go on but the point should be clear that essentially nobody kept a minimum requirements box on Win98 by the time XP came out. If memory serves I stopped using 486's with Dos 6.22.

Trust me, a 1-1.7GHz Pentium with 512MB-1GB ram and an 4x-8X AGP card will run modern Linux very nicely, once booted.... even including YouTube videos and some games etc.

There are literally millions using Windows XP as pirated, never had an update in years! In South Africa, it is said that 38% of all XP installations are pirateware. I know that the scores of second hand laptops sold with Windows 7 64-BIT Ultimate are almost all pirated. Just take a look on www.gumtree.co.za and see how many are offered with that!

And computer dealers hardly ever sell Ultimate.

No, I do not see them flocking to Linux, especially as they will not be able to sync PIM data via wirless (local) or USB.

This is the most critical failure of Linux.


Linux does NOT always run well on old hardware. I had an old HP Compaq NX9010 around, with Pentium4M 2.8GHz CPU and it could not run later releases of Ubuntu, for instance. It was good only to 12.04 but could not at all display graphics from 21.10 onward. It ran XP well, as it came with that when new. (I still have the original HP Windows XP CD.....should I frame it on the wall?)

Well actually Linux is the kernel and if it will run on any x86 cpu I think you may be talking about the GNU software. please do not lump Ubuntu as the standard they are far from it. But I am sure there is a GNU Linux out there for any machine.

I thank you for bringing up a good topic and allowing me to expound.

I was once BANNED from the forum of an American Linux forum just because I mentioned Ubuntu............

I have formatted my HP notebook as mentioned, no less than eight times one day, installing various distro's just to see if/how they would run. From AriOS right down to Zorin. Call me Le Frique if you like but I enjoyed it

Hi,
I agree that a 2 core Laptop could be used limited. To me this would be a major setback and intolerable.

We moved several 486 edge machines to Win98 that met the minimum requirements for MS Win/98. Performance was not that great, yet students could use the machines in a limited environment. Yes, some still had small footprint drives of that class.

There's the problem, not everyone would have the specifications. Your machine was upgradeable, not all MS98 machines were early on. Sure by the time 98 was released machines were starting to have multiple Pentium and/or equivalent but not all. Your installation of advanced HDD was not the norm. Comparing your hardware set as being the normal is not the overall systems that were released or built for 98. You maybe were afforded like I was to have leading edge at the time, not everyone.
Again, a broad paintbrush. That was you, not the average user who was trying to extend system life. At that time we were seeing monumental gains with Gnu/Linux but still limited access to hardware specifics to get the drivers/modules created. Could processors of that circa run Linux? Sure! Able to install Gnu/Linux on all Win98 class machines? Period Gnu/Linux could be installed but no guarantees one could/would have necessary drivers/modules for that hardware.

Sorry, no trust on this.There's the catch, once booted if at all. Please remember that we did have issues with some BIOS & motherboards at that time and if you used specific hardware then maybe that would be true. Not overall.

Not worth it!

@onebuck
and I submit that you are painting with an equally broad brush to write off all Win98 era boxes as unusable with modern Linux. Much as you point out that my usage was not the norm (despite my experience of literally hundreds of other peoples boxes between 1999-2001) apparently you are not the norm either since you find a Core 2 Duo era board "a major setback and intolerable". Just what do you do that requires so much power?

It is worthy of noting again that the average use has smallish needs - email, facebook, youtube, basic photo editing, etc. The more we advance toward The Cloud (or as it used to be called "Push") the thinner the client requirements.

I play PC games and record and edit semi-pro audio so my boxes tend to be fat and eminently upgradeable. That said I recently built a $600 gaming machine for my son with an NOS Core 2 Extreme and Intel DP45SG and he tells me that playing DayZ people with newer boxes complain all the time about performance problems, none of which he experiences, so balance and setup matters, too.

More On Topic - with extremely few exceptions they will boot but take awhile doing it. Once up though, one can have a pleasant experience if one simply is aware of the limitations and doesn't try to run a dune buggy against a fuel dragster on 1/4 mile run.... or the opposite. Know your tools... capabilities and limitations, right?

Hi,

We both will have our opinions about 98 class systems and actual usage. One end; early release 98 systems are not the best units. 98 end of life period (pre XP) machines are limited but usable to some, not me.
Too much work to get a system tweaked(if at all) with limited operational system as compared to modern equipment.

Personally, I feel that time & effort are important. If the 98 machine is the only thing you can get your hands on then fine try as you may. This is a world community and I am sure there are loads of users who must use older equipment. We do have lighter modern Gnu/Linux or period Gnu/Linux that could possibly be used. If your 2-core system meets the needs then fine for you.

As to your statement;My opinion and personal usage was the reason behind this;I am not writing off all 98 machines, later units are doable with time & effort but limited operationally as compared to modern hardware with current Gnu/Linux. I do not recommend the usage of old equipment unless that is the only hardware accessible but must be usable.

My hardware requirements are at the high end for work done and would never tolerate using a limiting system. Yes, I could use a low end 2-core system but I can afford the high end/better equipment to meet my specifications. So why would I step backwards and required more time to get up. Would I accept a 2-core Laptop? No reason too. Should someone else accept a 2-core Laptop? If that is what they wish to use and can get things tweaked to suit the environment at that minimal cost of what you say is ~'$100.00' US on Ebay. Production is important to me since that means time & effort.

BTW, I do not use Ebay any longer. Too much junk!

That is the difference between us, I do know what fits the needs for better operational specifications for 'MY' system requirements therefore I will not sacrifice my specs to use low end equipment. You know yours.

Yet, I will not spend expensive amounts on a System but fit to meet my needs. I rarely purchase new unless it's a build. I did purchase a refurbished Laptop; Dell XPS L702X i7, put a fair size modern SSD into it. Maxed the memory to 16GB. I love the speed and system responsiveness(using KDE). Plus having the wide screen helps these old eyes. Life of the Laptop will be 3-5 years, I am into my second year.

Did I retire my previous multi-core Dell Laptops, no still used along with bench machines for duty work. Mostly cross compiling, interfacing and ARM use when bread-boarding designs.

I do have a travel Dell that could be considered light, i3, touch screen with 8GB, good GPU and a SSD. I use this whenever necessary to meet or service clients since it is dual boot with Microsoft & Slackware. Not bad, but no where near the XPS.

At one point in time, I did rebuild/refurbish equipment for clients. No real market for that, to much time for little pay back. Even the build market is not as profitable unless you do multiple units. You had better know the local market.