Linux doesn't run on older hardware?

[MyndFyre]

As usual, Microsoft is trying to pat themselves on the back and making ridiculous claims.  I run Linux on 233mhz and 300mhz boxes and it runs great (unless you try to run OpenOffice or Eclipse or other stupid stuff).  I also run Windows on a 500mhz box and it runs like shit.  So who's right?

I can toss NT 4.0 SPanything on a 233 or 300MHz box and it'll run great with only 16mb of RAM.  That was the kind of machine it was built for.

As it turns out, as long as there is enough RAM, evidently Windows 2003 will run on a 133MHz Pentium.

[Newby]

They're the ones that specified the setup. You can't blame anyone zorm.

Actually they tested against distros that are designed for current hardware, so responding that "hey we can beat your full OS with our stripped down OSes" isn't exactly encouraging.

You missed my point. Microsoft limited themselves to an out-of-the-box install for their OS.

Also, I love how one of the latest Slackware distros worked just fine on a PC from 1997. Windows XP can't run on a PC from 1997. I take that back. It can. Just fine, in fact, if you are fine with waiting 5-10 minutes to get past the login screen.

As usual, Microsoft is trying to pat themselves on the back and making ridiculous claims.  I run Linux on 233mhz and 300mhz boxes and it runs great (unless you try to run OpenOffice or Eclipse or other stupid stuff).  I also run Windows on a 500mhz box and it runs like shit.  So who's right?

I can toss NT 4.0 SPanything on a 233 or 300MHz box and it'll run great with only 16mb of RAM.  That was the kind of machine it was built for.

As it turns out, as long as there is enough RAM, evidently Windows 2003 will run on a 133MHz Pentium.

I can toss the original Slackware from 1993 on something slower than the machine from 1995 and it'll run just fine. I'd wager Win95 couldn't dream of running on something from 1993.

EDIT -- Now I'm confused @ zorm.

Funny how Microsoft is limited to being installed and run out-of-the-box yet Linux is allowed to use distros specifically designed for older hardware? Give me a break~

Actually they tested against distros that are designed for current hardware, so responding that "hey we can beat your full OS with our stripped down OSes" isn't exactly encouraging.

Which one is it?

[Sidoh]

And windows isn't the same way? If you turn off services its still windows, etc. If they use Windows CE or such its still the same basic kernel.

As Newby already pointed out, they limited themselves to an out-of-the-box install.

[zorm]

I understand Microsoft limited themselves but they also used full distros of Linux to test against! Then the Linux people respond back that they have other distros for old hardware.

My point is if you are going to compare a distro specifcally made for oldish hardware then Windows should be allowed to be modified in a similar fashion.

[Warrior]

Okay question: Who cares?
I mean if you're not willing to put enough money to get something more hightech than ISA ..or you're using a PC from 1997 ....
Cmon, get with the times.

Technically speaking a kernel can operate with just enough memory for itself and it's heap which is only a few megs. Memory can be swapped out so provided you have a reliable method of keeping a pagefile it should be possible, not saying it would be very efficient (or sane).

The way I see it you need a) Enough memory for the entire kernel (few megs) b) Enough memory for some pagetables/pagedirs
One 4KBPage maps 4MB of memory, not all memory has to be mapped at the same time. I think you may also need a small window of memory for a process to run in, parts of a process should be able to be paged to the disk/reread if you mark them as non resident then put them on the disk. On pagefault they can be paged back in from a file or swap. I'd estimate 16MB at the most for a fully working kernel. (Slow as hell and your disk would be active always

Now the term "old hardware" is also very vauge. I'd call hardware released in 1999-2000 old, and I'm pretty sure XP can run on that (Since most of the PCs who upgraded to XP on it's release used something around then) so it wouldn't be a far stretch to 1997.

[Newby]

Okay question: Who cares?
I mean if you're not willing to put enough money to get something more hightech than ISA ..or you're using a PC from 1997 ....
Cmon, get with the times.

Apparently, Microsoft did; they did the study.

My point is if you are going to compare a distro specifcally made for oldish hardware then Windows should be allowed to be modified in a similar fashion.

I thought it was for current hardware?

Actually they tested against distros that are designed for current hardware, so responding that "hey we can beat your full OS with our stripped down OSes" isn't exactly encouraging.

Hmm?

And they have every right to respond saying "we have older distros for older hardware" just like M$ could have said "we have older operating systems for older hardware."

Ooh, I get what you're saying. Who cares if it isn't encouraging? Let's see M$ strip down a Windows OS and compare it to an older distro in terms of usability in the desktop/server environment. I bet Linux comes up on top.

[MyndFyre]

I can toss the original Slackware from 1993 on something slower than the machine from 1995 and it'll run just fine. I'd wager Win95 couldn't dream of running on something from 1993.

I could run Windows 95 on my 386 with 4mb RAM from 1987.  It ran slow, but it was possible.

[Sidoh]

I understand Microsoft limited themselves but they also used full distros of Linux to test against! Then the Linux people respond back that they have other distros for old hardware.

My point is if you are going to compare a distro specifcally made for oldish hardware then Windows should be allowed to be modified in a similar fashion.

All of these Microsoft vs. Linux battles seem to be exactly this: Microsoft doesn't know how to use voccabulary.  They limited themselves to a set of conditions and Linux shows they can do that too.  There's no such thing as "out of hte box Linux."

Warrior: while I agree with you, I think you need to make your arguments sound more like an argument and less like an insult.  Who cares about this?  Old computers are growing more and more useless.

[Newby]

I can toss the original Slackware from 1993 on something slower than the machine from 1995 and it'll run just fine. I'd wager Win95 couldn't dream of running on something from 1993.

I could run Windows 95 on my 386 with 4mb RAM from 1987.  It ran slow, but it was possible.

I could build an LFS system that would run on that just fine.

I think.

[Warrior]

Warrior: while I agree with you, I think you need to make your arguments sound more like an argument and less like an insult.  Who cares about this?  Old computers are growing more and more useless.

Didn't mean for them to come off as hard, was merely trying to set the point that not many people actually use the old hardware on an everyday basis. Not saying what Microsoft claims is correct either, I'm just stating that literally every kernel which uses Flat Protected (or Flat Virtual, whatever) model which is overlapping segmentation (Base=0 Limit=0xFFFFFFFF) can probably run (very slowly and horribly) on old hardware. I think the only limitation is the actual support for the devices like older processor models and things like full preemptiveness in multitasking as opposed to cooperative which could lead to starvation. 

[Sidoh]

Didn't mean for them to come off as hard, was merely trying to set the point that not many people actually use the old hardware on an everyday basis. Not saying what Microsoft claims is correct either, I'm just stating that literally every kernel which uses Flat Protected (or Flat Virtual, whatever) model which is overlapping segmentation (Base=0 Limit=0xFFFFFFFF) can probably run (very slowly and horribly) on old hardware. I think the only limitation is the actual support for the devices like older processor models and things like full preemptiveness in multitasking as opposed to cooperative which could lead to starvation. 

Let me show you want I mean:

or you're using a PC from 1997 ....
Cmon, get with the times.

Completely unecessary.

[Warrior]

Wasn't directed at anyone here (Although I hope we all have PCs from this millenium).

[Newby]

Wasn't directed at anyone here (Although I hope we all have PCs from this millenium).

iago runs lots of computers that are barely fast enough to run Windows. Look at pie and darkside.

I run a laptop that is designed for win98. It runs Linux and used to host my CS server.

[Warrior]

I meant as a main PC, I'm pretty sure 16MB isn't what he uses regularly .

I'm also pretty sure since Window is a graphical enviroment at the least it would be fair
to do the comparison with Linux running a graphical enviroment as well.

[Sidoh]

I meant as a main PC, I'm pretty sure 16MB isn't what he uses regularly .

I'm also pretty sure since Window is a graphical enviroment at the least it would be fair
to do the comparison with Linux running a graphical enviroment as well.

That's the glory of it.  You don't have to use a graphical environment.