Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Mar 2006 22:00 UTC
Windows Microsoft has delayed a special slimmed-down version of Windows XP for legacy PCs, which is based on the Windows Embedded code base. The Redmond company had expected to make the operating system available to Software Assurance customers this month, but now says Windows Fundamentals will ship 'in late 2006.' Windows Fundamentals can run on older machines that do not support XP while providing the same level of security.
Thread beginning with comment 104130
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ummm
by penlec2 on Tue 14th Mar 2006 00:47 UTC in reply to "ummm"
penlec2
Member since:
2006-03-14

Linux doesn't run on old hardware. It is a lie.

Reply Parent Score: -3

RE[2]: ummm
by DigitalAxis on Tue 14th Mar 2006 03:20 in reply to "RE: ummm"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Yes, your previous statement was indeed a lie.

I'm posting this from a Pentium II running Gentoo Linux.

...or did you mean old as in an Apple II... or a PDP-1? In that case no, it doesn't.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: ummm
by byrc on Tue 14th Mar 2006 06:52 in reply to "RE[2]: ummm"
byrc Member since:
2006-02-18

Honestly, it really depends on what "old hardware" you are talking about. Also what you consider to be "running"

Saying "linux runs on old hardware" is too vague to be correct. Saying "linux has lower min. system requirements so that gives it he oppurtunity to run on older hardware" is more accurate.

If I had a dollar for every time i tried to get a real old sound or video driver working on linux...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ummm
by alcibiades on Tue 14th Mar 2006 07:26 in reply to "RE: ummm"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"Linux doesn't run on old hardware. It is a lie."

Presumably written just to provoke, but there is some truth in it. AMD K6 500, with 512 memory and a big drive, and it is impossible to find a usable distro that will run as fast as W98. I've tried just about everything. Vector for instance will not do it, in either standard or Soho versions. Whereas W98 gives you the desktop most people can use, even if its not real pretty, very snappy response, and an Office suite that you need OO to compete with.

You can install DSL, and it work, and will be fast, but try persuading anyone you love to use Siag Office....

No, don't.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: ummm
by markjensen on Tue 14th Mar 2006 16:03 in reply to "RE[2]: ummm"
markjensen Member since:
2005-07-26

"AMD K6 500, with 512 memory and a big drive, and it is impossible to find a usable distro that will run as fast as W98. I've tried just about everything. Vector for instance will not do it, in either standard or Soho versions."

I am pretty sure that if you used the optional XFCE WM in Vector (or use IceWM for a real "98" experience), you would get equivalent performance.

Unfortunately, I see too many people compare the speed of an old Win98 (designed for harware requirements of its release in 1998) with a current Ubuntu/other Linux with a full KDE or Gnome desktop. Different hardware expectations there with it being 2006 and all. ;) The test could use Red Hat 5.1 (released May 1998, one month before Win98) and compare 'peppiness', but that would be pointless, as it is out of date and not as easy or pleasing to use as anything current.

With Windows 98, you also have to deal with an outdated unsupported operating system and the potential functional/security issues.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Best alternative to Win98 = Win2000
by rhl2000 on Sat 18th Mar 2006 05:09 in reply to "RE[2]: ummm"
rhl2000 Member since:
2006-03-18

>>"Linux doesn't run on old hardware.
>>It is a lie."

>Presumably written just to provoke, but there is some
>truth in it. AMD K6 500, with 512 memory and a big
>drive, and it is impossible to find a usable distro
>that will run as fast as W98.

I'll vouch for that too. In my limited experience, nothing in the sub-1GHz range will give a snappy (and pleasant) desktop with Linux.

HOWEVER, if you have access to the needed media (and licenses, of course... ;-), Windows 2000 and Office 2000 will give you a pretty responsive system with much less hardware than that. I am just now (March 2006) phasing out 20 office desktop systems that have been running for 6 years on just that combination (though they started with Win98 in 64M). Most machines were PIIs (Pentium 2) at 400MHz, and of the lot, those that had been upgraded to 256M of RAM and 20G or 30G disks were still fairly snappy (for their main office purposes), while those that were stuck with 128M and 6G disks were only recently beginning to feel sluggish. That may have been due in part to the unavoidable cruft that accumulates on systems that have been installed over 3 years ago, and have been running 40 hours a week since then...

Reply Parent Score: 1