Longhorn?

[Aloone_Jonez]

Now...nothing listed is a "hard" distro that supports old machines.  Those are all the easy, "bloated" ones.  I'll give you Fedora; it's slow.  But I've never had performance problems with Mandrake, SuSE, or Ubuntu, on said P2/400s with 128MB RAM.  (My school has a lot of those.)  It's actually kinda gotten better: Ubuntu Warty had a laggy Gnome 2.8, where opening the Run Application box took upwards of 10 seconds.  But Hoary changed this to about 2, and is more responsive overall.  I've only worked with Mandrake/SuSE 9.2, so I can't say if Mdk 10.1 would be faster on such machines.

You're not limited to harder stuff for old machines.  That is, provided you can get 128MB RAM for them.  Which you likely can.

Fair enough, perhapps I wasn't being fair, as I was comparing them too much to Knoppix and Vector Linux, lol I think I'm becomming a zealot. Mandrake isn't too bad even though it's not the fastest, I haven't run SuSE before and I shouldn't have mentioned Linspire before as I've never used it.

Mandrake is similar speed to Windows in my experiance which isn't that bad, but bet it'll be way faster than Longhorn. Windows XP has a minmum requirement of 64MB of RAM and it's very slow on that, they recommend 128MB and it's not too bad unless you're running too many programs but I haven't run Mandrake on 128MB before so I don't know.

Sorry please forgive me for my Vector/Knoppix zealotism.

[WMD]

Hey, I see where you come from, I run Slackware myself.

[noob]

the longhorn beta runs like a dog. i HAd an athlon 3.2 barton and it was so slow i couldnt believe it. that cpu would run xp pro sp2, another copy of pro sp2 inside vmware and i would run linux (a few distros) in vm aswell. and if the beta was really just xp with the interface tweaks and a bit of extra stuff, how is longhorn gunna shift? they will prob go with dell to get it out there asap. M$ have a winner, no one will waste time cracking activation for such a slow OS.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Aren't you being a bit unfair, as you're only looking at the beta release?

[WMD]

Beta usually have debugging code and stuff in them.  But still...if it's slow on a 3200+ Barton, how can they speed it up so machines with 1/3rd the CPU can run it?  That's an awful lot.

[toadlife]

Regardless of what Microsoft has said about longhorn scaling down,we should not forget Microsoft's previous system requirements for their OS's...

Win2000 P133 64MB RAM (yeah right)
WinXP p233 64MB ram (hahahah!)

Those requirements were a complete joke. I'm sure longhorn's minimum requirements will be equally ridiculous.

[WMD]

And to add:

Windows 95, 386/33 with 8MB RAM
Windows 98, 486DX2/66, 24MB RAM (95 wasn't even good on this)
Windows ME, Pentium 150, 32MB RAM

Longhorn's box will probably end up saying something like P3/500 with 128MB RAM.  And it won't run on that.

[toadlife]

Longhorn's box will probably end up saying something like P3/500 with 128MB RAM.  And it won't run on that.

No. It will 'walk' on that.

[WMD]

Ah yes, walk.  Much the way Mozilla 1.3 walks on an iMac G3 with 32MB RAM. \o/

(I've done it.  It's not pretty.)

[toadlife]

I had a similar experience. See those minimun requirements up there for Windows 95? I actually installed Win95 in on a machine that met those exact specs once. I remember it taking about 5 minutes to boot up. I set up a modem and dialed into the internet and simple text webpages would take 45 seconds to render on the screen.

I threw the machine in the trash shortly afterwards.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I still have an ole laptop with Windows 95 on (I forget how much RAM, may've been 8MB or even 4MB) and it was fucking slow. I'd say Windows XP requires 128MB mimimum but I'd recoment at least 256MB which is about the same for a modern graphical Linux distoro  but wft XP was released in 2001 and I'm comparing it to OSs around today!

[bedouin]

Windows 95 and 98 aren't so bad on a 486 running at say 66 or 75mhz.  It needs at least 16mb though to feel comfortable.  Netscape doesn't feel too fabulous on it; IE 4 is acceptable.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Hang on you people here say Microsoft bullshit about the mimimum requirements for their software and I agree they do you could never run Windows XP properly on 64MB of RAM. What about OpenOffice though?

From the readme file for OpenOffice 2.0 beta, see attached.

------------------------------------------------------------
Notes on Installation
------------------------------------------------------------

System Requirements:

- Microsoft Windows 98, ME, NT (Service Pack 6 or higher), 2000 or XP
- Pentium compatible PC
- 64 MB RAM
- 250 MB (CJK version: 300 MB) available hard disk space
- 800x600 resolution or higher, at least 256 colors

OpenOffice 1.1.x is a bit choppy on 128MB of RAM, while OpenOffice 2.0 beta is bigger and I wouldn't like to run it on only 64MB of ram, and wtf all those wonderful gradiants and eye candy would look shit on 256 colour display. I would say 128MB minimum (256M recommended) with a 64K colour display to run OpenOffice. I suppose many software vendors are guilty of this, not just Microsoft.

Edit:
I've just being using OpenOffice 1.1.4 at work today on 128MB of RAM and it was OK, so you might beable to get away with 64MB - just. However Openoffice 1.1.2 was a lot slower, perhapps they've improved the speed from 1.1.2 to 1.1.4!

Who knows the final relese of OpenOffice 2.0 might be even faster, KDE has got faster so I hope the same happens for OpenOffice.

If I ever bother to get my old p20O 32MB running again I'll upgrade the RAM to 64MB and try OpenOffice 2.0 and see what  happens.

[verwijderd door de beheerder]

[Lead Head]

i got XP to run pretty good on my brothers old K-6 233 MHz w/512 KB L-2 cache, 96 MB of SIMM ram. It actually booted faster than my old P3 800 MHz with win98 with 300 MB ram. I got win95 to run good on a Pentium 100 with 16 MB of ram, same with win98,


 I wouldn't be surprised if longhorn said P4 840 EE Dual Core with 4 GB of Dual Channel DDR or/ Athlon 64 X2 4800 with 4 GB Dual channel, ATI Radeon x850 XT PE in Crossfire or Nvidia 6800 Ultra in SLI

[Lead Head]

Also suse is pretty quick for KDE and there is a GNOME version too