Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

XP On 8-MHz Pentium With 20 MB RAM

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the golden-hourglass dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 410

swehack writes "The guys over at winhistory.de managed to get their Windows XP Professional running on a very minimal box: an Intel Pentium clocked down to 8 MHz with 20 MB of RAM. (The installer won't work with less than 64 MB, but after installing you can remove memory.) The link has plenty of pictures of their progress in achieving this dubious milestone. They deserve a Golden Hourglass award for 'extreme waste of time.' What obscure hardware configurations have you managed to get Windows running on?"

cancel ×

410 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Imagine..... (4, Funny)

aneeshm (862723) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140540)

....a Beowulf cluster of these!


Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Imagine..... (3, Funny)

loconet (415875) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140598)

I for one welcome our new masochists overloards

LIKE A THROBBING COCK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140730)

IN YOUR ASS

Re:Imagine..... (3, Funny)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140750)

In Soviet Russia. . . uhh. . . they run XP on VIC-20?

Re:Imagine..... (2, Funny)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140808)

It's hard enough to keep Windows stable on ONE computer. Why would anyone want a cluster of them? It's just more failure points to put up with.

Re:Imagine..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18141022)

Not remotely funny or clever.

Re:Imagine..... (3, Funny)

Null Perception (914562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141118)

Imagine a Beowolf cluster of Beowulf cluster jokes.

Re:Imagine..... (1)

Quantam (870027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141160)

....a Beowulf cluster of these!

Urge to kill you... fighting with... urge to laugh...

My Hardware (5, Funny)

abscissa (136568) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140542)

What obscure hardware configurations have you managed to get Windows running on?

AMD Athlon 3000+ with 1 GB of RAM. A miracle... I know... and STILL I have to reinstall it every couple of months!!

Re:My Hardware (1)

tinkertim (918832) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140854)

What obscure hardware configurations have you managed to get Windows running on?

AMD Athlon 3000+ with 1 GB of RAM. A miracle... I know... and STILL I have to reinstall it every couple of months!!


Dammit *I* was going to make that joke. How dare you? , you .... insensitive sod!

Yes but does it run (5, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140554)

Vista?

Re:Yes but does it run (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140642)

Getting XP to run on an 8MHz, 20MB RAM system is the same as getting Vista to run on a 1GHz, 256MB RAM system.

Sad, isn't it?

Not too long ago... (5, Interesting)

CrkHead (27176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140556)

When Windows 98 came out the installer also checked the memory. I was doing break/fix in a shop and someone insisted we could "upgrade" their OS without them purchasing RAM. I popped in test RAM, did the install, pulled the RAM and sent it home.

Don't think we ever heard back from them.

last time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140558)

i used thermal compound my cat had silver crap for weeks

Re:last time (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141184)

Next time try plaster-of-paris. I promise you won't have that problem...

Reminds me of the time I compiled Gentoo on a 286 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140574)

Or rather, the time I started compiling Gentoo on a 286. It was 2004, and it's still going. I think KDE will be done by 2008.

Re:Reminds me of the time I compiled Gentoo on a 2 (1, Troll)

stinerman (812158) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140816)

If you're going to troll at least make sense. Gentoo (and in general, Linux) won't compile on a 286. You'd need at least a 386.

Re:Reminds me of the time I compiled Gentoo on a 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140882)

woooosh :-(

Re:Reminds me of the time I compiled Gentoo on a 2 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140894)

If you're going to have a lack of a sense of humor, you need to stop fapping to pedo-porn.

Fucking twink.

Re:Reminds me of the time I compiled Gentoo on a 2 (3, Insightful)

mh101 (620659) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140902)

You have no sense of humor, do you?

Re:Reminds me of the time I compiled Gentoo on a 2 (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141152)

Hey, I'm working 3rd shift!

Yeah, I deserved that one.

Cruel. (4, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140586)

Isn't this against the Geneva conventions?

Just like 'enemy combatants' (5, Funny)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140636)

Isn't this against the Geneva conventions?

Sadly, computers don't have rights, so moral arguments aside, I'm afraid it's quite legal to run Windows on them.

Just not legal (1)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140768)

Computers may not have rights so you can install it on the computer.

It is just illegal to make somebody use it, it is Cruel and Unusual Punishment. If the it is in the workplace, it is an illegal work environment.

Re:Just not legal (3, Funny)

Barny (103770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141032)

And if used for medical computers, its an illegal operation :P

Well.... (1)

Rendo (918276) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140628)

On the ass of a hooker.... I know, good huh.

Let's try a different challenge... (5, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140640)

How about installing Windows 3.11 on a 64-bit system?

Hmph... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140784)

That'd probably work- by accident. About like a Windows 1.0 system would. There's enough backwards
compatibility there to support those the way they expect to enough to sort of run.

Re:Hmph... (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140942)

I doubt it. Wasn't Win3.11 16-bit? 16-bit support was dropped when 64-bit support was added, IIRC. That said, Parallels will do it fine (if you can resist slitting your wrist by the fourth floppy disk), and I'd imagine the other popular VM software can as well.

Re:Hmph... (1)

Indy1 (99447) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141056)

no 16bit support still exists. you can run dos on a current cpu.

Re:Hmph... (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141140)

you can run dos on a current cpu.
Indeed -- you can. And often you have to, to upgrade BIOSs and firmwares and such.


I was thinking that maybe the Itanium [wikipedia.org] couldn't run 16 bit code -- but apparently it has no trouble doing it -- it just does it really slowly. The Itanium 2 [wikipedia.org] would seem to have gotten rid of the x86 compatibility in hardware (and moved it to software instead) so I don't see how it could run DOS. But all of the x86_64 cpus out there should have no trouble running DOS programs.

Re:Hmph... (1)

kasperd (592156) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141110)

16-bit support was dropped when 64-bit support was added
Not completely. The 64 bit CPUs are fully backward compatible. Some of the 16 bit support was dropped from the 64 bit mode. But the CPU still starts up in 16 bit mode, and much of the BIOS is 16 bit code. From there you can switch to 32 bit mode and only then can you switch to 64 bit mode. Once you are in 64 bit mode a few features are missing, you don't have any virtual 86 mode, and segmentation doesn't apply to 64 bit code. You can still run 32 bit code with the ordinary segmentation, and I even think you can run 16 bit code as long as you intend to run it in protected mode.

Re:Let's try a different challenge... (3, Funny)

compwizrd (166184) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140958)

I found out the hard way that Windows 95 wouldn't run on a p4 2.0, even in safe mode.

Re:Let's try a different challenge... (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141080)

How about installing Windows 3.11 on a 64-bit system?

I installed Microsoft Bob on a Turion 64 laptop with a gig of ram a couple of months ago. It ran ok.

It's not as bad as you'd expect, and certainly less intrusive than Vista.

Re:Let's try a different challenge... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18141106)

A MAJOR accounting firm, 300,000 accountants world wide, that I support their Frame-Relay connectivity, until today, 25th of February, Sunday, 2007, still using windows 3.11 for their computers.

They constantly upgrade their hardware (as soon as warrenty expires on the hardeware, they start selling it, auction style, for the book value of $1.00). Yet they still run windows 3.11. Eventhough that Microsoft told them that they will no longer support it. They simply think that it works fine for filling spreadsheets, writting Word Perfect documents, and exchange files on line via FTP, and exchange information via a well-put-together Oracle-core database.

Their tech support team knows the ins and outs of the system, they feel comfortable working with it, the top execs of the company are not lured by all the sales idiots that march in their offices on querterly basis to sell them another Misrosoft system. They are just working fine, and making good money, no headaches, no new viruses, no graphics,, just a f!@#$% spreadsheet and an ftp, with a good DB. subject closed. If you show them any Microsoft certs for job credentials in your interview, you almost hear them say "good for you, close the door behind you, NEXT".

BTW, until today, most of the airlines in Europe are still using OS2 for their end terminal client at the airports. They just need a 'thing to run the f!@#$ database', no more.

windows95 (1)

kz45 (175825) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140646)

Even though it is a little dated, I had windows95 running on a 386 DX 20 with 8mb of ram. It took half an hour to bootup.

Re:windows95 (1)

Basehart (633304) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140710)

I got WindowsME running on a PII with 2GB of RAM once.

Re:windows95 (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140802)

You mean you actually GOT ME to run?

Re:windows95 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140924)

ME "runs" fine for a number of CPU cycles until BSOD ..

In my experience this meant that without doing anything beside pressing the power button:

a 233MHz pentium MMX would run for a little over a day before BSOD

a 1.4GHz Athlon would run for a little over an hour before BSOD

Since that 1.4GHz w/ ME I have primarily run linux

Re:windows95 (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140926)

I had Win2k running on an AMD K6-2 with 64M of PC100 & 32M of EDO for a total of 96M of RAM for over a year.
I did it with a PC Chips M571 [m571.com] mobo.

Re:windows95 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140820)

I, for reasons i'm no longer certain of, installed 95 on a 386SX/16, with 4MB of horrible horrible ram.

From floppies.

Re:windows95 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18141192)

The best I have is a Pentium II 266 Mhz with 64 MB of RAM, running windows XP Professional SP2. Once it gets started, Its surprisingly usable. I had to go back to it for a while, when I was undertaking some problematic water cooling installation.

The most limiting feature was the 4 MB STB Nitro Graphics card. >.>
Or the 6 GB of HDD space.

That computer cost me like $2500 or something back in 1996. I payed so much extra to get EDO RAM.

It's all about the Pentiums! (5, Funny)

Devil's BSD (562630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140648)

You're using a 286? Don't make me laugh. Your Windows boots up in what, a day and a half?

Re:It's all about the Pentiums! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140726)

What kinda chip you got in there? A dorito?

Re:It's all about the Pentiums! (2, Funny)

reezle (239894) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140950)

"My new computer's got the clocks; it rocks, but it was obsolete before I opened the box"

Re:It's all about the Pentiums! - THE VIDEO (1)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141154)

In case you're wondering what the hell this thread is about, watch this absolutely hilarious video by Weird Al Yankovic from 1999/2000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p0gKNQAGUc [youtube.com]

You'll laugh, you'll cry, and then you'll go watch "White & Nerdy"

Adeptus

Re:It's all about the Pentiums! (1)

YenTheFirst (1056960) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140996)

Maybe, just for a moment, this will be 'the biggest joke on the internet'

I've been wondering... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18141012)

Hey Slashdot, why are PC users such ugly dweebs [imageshack.us] in comparison to Mac users [imageshack.us] ? Is it because nobody has the time or patience to put up with Windows/Linux except for friendless, sexless nerds like you?

Re:It's all about the Pentiums! (1)

ribo-bailey (724061) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141128)

You say you've had your desktop for over a week? Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique.

Re:It's all about the Pentiums! (2, Funny)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141178)

"If I ever meet you, I'll CTRL-ALT-DELETE you!!!!"
ROFL

A PC-104 stack (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140656)

Actually I have a semi-impressive result in this area I think. I got Windows XP embedded running on a PC-104 stack with I think a 500 MHz processor and 256 megs RAM. Not so bad, huh?

But it also had only 384 megs of flash storage, and about 40 of that had to be free for other stuff.

Re:A PC-104 stack (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140666)

Oh, and that 40 megs doesn't include space for the .net framework.

Ahh, that was... fun.

Re:A PC-104 stack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140742)

Oh, and that 40 megs doesn't include space for the .net framework.

Ahh, that was... fun.
#define FUN() transform_sphincter_size(Sizes::GOATSE)

Re:A PC-104 stack (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140856)

Windows XP embedded.

Never a more curious juxtaposition of terms.

Why?

Re:A PC-104 stack (2, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140932)

This was for a college extracurricular project I was working on, a rocket payload [psu.edu] . We were flying a camera to take pictures during the flight, and the camera wouldn't run on anything but XP with their own software that required .Net.

It didn't work all that well, and it was a pain to get set up, and I definitely should have said "trying to do this with this equipment is stupid" but that was already the second camera I was given (the first didn't work at all) after being brought on with less than a year to launch, so... XP Embedded* it was.

* There should have been a cap E in my previous post

Re:A PC-104 stack (1)

swordfishBob (536640) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140886)

Yeah. Notice the article describes "running in" 50MB. The system wasn't running entirely in RAM..

Obscure hardware configurations (1)

nerdin (1330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140676)

I once tried to install Novell Linux Desktop on a 128 MB P6 Celeron and the installer refused to do it. It asked for 256 MB RAM.

Re:Obscure hardware configurations (1)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140734)

Ah, well if we're including Linux, then I had SLS Linux running on a Viglen 386SX-16 with 5 megabytes of RAM (5? Yes, well, Viglen was always known for being a little odd. You had the 4 MB of extended memory, but it then let you use the original 1 MB of RAM as well.)

Actually, it worked pretty well. I had X and OpenLook running and was able to run a Netrek server with 19 robot players and myself on a regular Netrek client. That's not bad going, given that Netrek was not the most elegant of programs. (Hell, olvwm was not exactly a masterpiece of coding. I'm amazed to this day that I could get a full GUI environment that showed no obvious lag on such a system.)

Probably the most surreal experience, though, was running Windows under dosemu under Linux.

Re:Obscure hardware configurations (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141156)

Ah, well if we're including Linux, then I had SLS Linux running on a Viglen 386SX-16 with 5 megabytes of RAM (5? Yes, well, Viglen was always known for being a little odd. You had the 4 MB of extended memory, but it then let you use the original 1 MB of RAM as well.)

I had slackware running on a 6 mb 33 mhz system; the funny thing was I could run multiple desktops with animated wallpaper, and it ran fine. I can't even find animated wallpaper anymore, which I don't really understand...

This was back in like 94, before Windows 95, when the performance difference between Windows and Linux was at the greatest. Moving to Linux at that stage was like jumping ahead 2 or 3 generations.

So..... (4, Funny)

Chas (5144) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140686)

It's roughly the speed of Vista on a Quad-Core C2 with 4GB of RAM and a 15K rpm RAID-0 array then?

=)

Re:So..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140954)

It wouldn't be so funny if it was not true.

Obligatory... (5, Funny)

saturndude (609090) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140692)

20 Megs of RAM? I thought 640K was supposed to be enough for anyone!!!

Re:Obligatory... (1)

NOLFXceptMe (1013903) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140842)

lol........me thought 784MB :P was sufficient when using 233Mhz PII ....still using ;)

GX Optiplex Pentium Pro (1)

PaulB007 (1033202) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140696)

Oh the memories. I remember I couldnt afford a computer a few years ago, so I used a pirated ISO of XP and decided to put it on my old Dell Optiplex Pentium Pro, 100 MHZ, 128 MB of RAM, 4GB SCSI Hard Drive. The install took about three and a half hours, but the boot time took roughly 5 minutes or so if I remember right. It could perform basic functions, but more than one application and you could count on no activity for a long time. Surprisingly the machine never locked up and continued working. Im surprised the machine itself didnt just take a shit and die, I remember leaving it on one night and I could hear the hard drive working ALL NIGHT, I wonder how big the page file was on that thing..

Mac? (5, Funny)

duncanbojangles (787775) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140698)

What obscure hardware configurations have you managed to get Windows running on?

iMac with an Intel Core Duo 2?

my experience (1)

kasgoku (988652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140704)

Intel® Celeron® M Processor 340 [1.5GHz] + 192 RAM.

I tried putting Ubuntu on this laptop, not much success, almost didnt work with that.
Then, I started using a lightweight linux, which worked fine.
Then, I tried WinXP Pro, works good on this machine. Not excellent, its workable.
koolest thing -> I can play counterstrike!

That Slashdot Bias, Again (2, Interesting)

Kennego (963972) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140744)

They deserve a Golden Hourglass award for 'extreme waste of time.'
Not that I ever expect much of anything from the Slashdot editors, but having this comment is just stupid. If someone were to get some Linux distro working on a much weaker box than we're used to seeing it on, it wouldn't be labeled an "extreme waste of time." When a Linux distro is compacted enough to conveniently fit on a flash drive, it's not an extreme waste of time (though yes I get how something like this is definitely more useful). But this, because it's Windows, has to be an extreme waste of time.

It's a pretty big achievement, I think, to get WinXP to run on such a crappy setup, even more so because it IS Windows, which we're used to seeing require much more in terms of resources than a comparable Linux package. Maybe someone will figure out how to get WinXP running on their crappy but not-as-crappy box by reading this article.

Re:That Slashdot Bias, Again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140826)

Hey M$ luser, go and fuck yourself! --->

How'd ya like that bias biatsch?

xD

RTFA (3, Informative)

Tharkban (877186) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140840)

That comment was in the article. It was simply included in the summary, not added by /.

> But until this [sic] the record of the lamest XP PC goes from Berlin (Germany) to Vienna (Austria).
> {Image} The golden Sandclock Award
> {Image} For extreme waste of time.

Re:RTFA (1)

slack_prad (942084) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141116)

> {Image} For extreme waste of time.
What would you want him to do instead? Visit slashdot and post comments?

Re:That Slashdot Bias, Again (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140858)

It's a pretty big achievement, I think, to get WinXP to run on such a crappy setup, even more so because it IS Windows, which we're used to seeing require much more in terms of resources than a comparable Linux package.

No, it's not. All they did was plug in old hardware and try to install it. No limitation of size, no optimization of anything. Just simple testing of "how slow can you go?"

The Linux comparison would be picking up Linux at the store, and seeing how low a system you could put it on.

(The MS comparison to small-size Linux hacks is a size-limited Windows Embedded system.)

Re:That Slashdot Bias, Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18141036)

No limitation of size, no optimization of anything.

If you read TFA, you'd know that they used nLite [wikipedia.org] to do their installs, which can optimise and remove many WinXP components before install.

Re:That Slashdot Bias, Again (1)

sendai2ci (629417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140864)

Direct quote from TFA...

"The golden Sandclock Award For extreme waste of time."

With a cool lil' sandclock gif beside it and everything...

Re:That Slashdot Bias, Again (1)

d0nu7 (941456) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140982)

And apparently they are running the server on that box as well......

Re:That Slashdot Bias, Again (1)

iamstretchypanda (939837) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141108)

Actually, when i read the headline the first thing i thought was... "why?"

Heh... Not bad... (3, Interesting)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140752)

It's comparable to the time I wanted to see just how brutal an environment Windows 95 would install
and still "run". I had this old narfy 386sx-16 "laptop" with 16Mb of RAM and 120Mb of HD. I installed
it with compression out of the gate and the thing just went in there. It wasn't happy with me, but
it was usable for very small values of "usable" and it ran stuff like Delphi if you were patient for
very large values of "patient" as it swap-thrashed itself to death doing what I asked of it.

It still worked. I was impressed. Wasn't USEFUL, mind.

This falls under the same category.

Not really an achivement, but... (1)

Reservoir Penguin (611789) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140764)

All our accountants use 333 mhz celerons with 256 megs of ram to run a single accounting applications. Once you switch to classic interface and turn off unnecessary services it actually runs faster than win2k on the same hardware, and it is the kind of hardware win2k was mean to run on. Needless to say we are not planning to switch to Vista!

P120 Laptop (3, Informative)

Digital Pizza (855175) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140772)

I installed XP Pro on an old Toshiba Tecra 500CDT with a 120Mhz Pentium, memory maxed out at 144MB (actually a decent amount for that generation of hardware), drive upgraded to 6GB. The machine originally ran Windows 3.11, had a 500MB drive, and 16MB RAM.

Microsoft dropped support for the Tecra's Chips&Technologies video chipset, so I used the driver from Win2K; also didn't support acceleration at 24-bit (worked but with pretty slow screen drawing) so set it to 16-bit color, worked great.

Machine has a CDROM but BIOS won't boot from it so I had to boot the WinXP install floppies which you have to download from Microsoft; different set of disks for XP Pro and XP Home.

Not going to win any speed records, but quite useable.

Re:P120 Laptop (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140998)

I knew a guy who had a 200MHz laptop with Windows XP. He was using a WindowsBlinds style (which I have found to be slightly slower than VisualStyles, and this is on a computer fast enough to handle themes normally). It was the slowest computer I had seen in a long time. Hell, I got annoyed with it easily before 5 minutes. God knows how long he'd had it. I bet he might still be using it too.

Re:P120 Laptop (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141000)

That system must have cost a fortune originally! I remember, cause I wanted one. I had a similar model with a Pentium 90 and 8MB RAM and a much smaller hard drive and the thought of 16MB memory and half a gig of storage was drool-worthy. Good thing it's still being used for something. ;P

Hmmm (3, Insightful)

KKlaus (1012919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140788)

So they win an award for biggest waste of time... and somehow I read about it on the front page of Slashdot. Methinks the award was right.

ZzzZz.

Re:Hmmm (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140904)

And yet, many of us read every word of it, including the benchmarks.

I read it out of morbid curiousity because I can't stand running Windows XP on even a Pentium 4; too long from POST to being able to actually open an application.

Vista... (0, Troll)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140794)

That's nothing. I got Vista to run on a quad core, state of the art SLI system with only 4GB of ram.

OK, so it only sort of runs, the SLI doesn't actually work and a lot of the positional audio effects on my sound card have disappeared... but I'm hopeful that, with enough time for them to upgrade drivers, I may one day get it fully functional. Until then, Minesweeper is screamingly fast.

Re:Vista... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140936)

Why would you go through the trouble and expense of building a system like that and then install windows on it?

Cat-astrophic failure (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140818)

I've got it running on my dead cat, and I can't tell the difference!

The most interesting config I've done... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140850)

A mac

Think again (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140862)

"They deserve a Golden Hourglass award for 'extreme waste of time.'"

Uh... I don't think they'd appreciate that - they probably see plenty of hourglasses already.

Har. (2, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | more than 7 years ago | (#18140912)

Windows 3.1 in a window on top of DesqView/X

In 8MB.

It worked...

--
BMO

i was running.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18140992)

i was running win 98, with 16 meg ram and 255 mhz

Gentoo! (1)

audi100quattro (869429) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141002)

How about compiling Gentoo on an iPAQ, or a 33 Mhz with 32 MB of RAM?

Back in the day... (1)

Cervantes (612861) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141018)

Back in the day, I was strapped for cash and hardware, but I wanted some server action. So I installed Win2000 Advanced Server on a P1-200mhz with 32MB (if I recall right, might have been 64 or whatever was the min required to install). EDO ram. Most services running (WINS, DNS, file sharing, 2 NICs to serve as a gateway and firewall, print servers, etc).
It was Ok for the first little bit. After a month or so though, it started to go downhill. At one point, I restarted it when I woke up in the morning, and it was ready to log 5 hours later. File transfer speeds measured in KB/S, not MB. A habit of crashing for no reason, requiring multihour restart cycles. I probably taxed it too much, with an ATI tv card install, gateway software,and other gizmos. It also got a few viruses that didn't properly clean.

Eventually it was replaced by other hardware, but for the longest time it was my leverage around the household. Anytime someone did something I didn't want, I'd threaten to put the P200 back as the network server. I usually got my way.

Underclocking (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141048)

How did they underclock the Pentium to only 8MHz?

Re:Underclocking (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141114)

Ahh, when the site got un-slashdotted, I was able to read it from the page. :P

Gotta love it... (5, Funny)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141074)

As soon as a new Windows comes out, the old one is suddenly hailed as everything you would ever need, and a marvel of efficient resource usage.

I bought a 386 for like, $10. (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141092)

Or, it may have been given to me as part of some other deal. Kinad hazy on the whole thing now... I canabalized it for parts (case, CD-ROM, hard drive, etc. were all still worth something) but before I did that, I tried installing Windows 95 just for the heck of it, and it worked. That box had 4 megs of ram I think, I might have had to add some. I don't remember how big the hard drive was. I understand it might not have worked if I hadn't had a later model 386, something to do with the co-processor IIRC.

This was back around 1998 or so. The hard drive and extra CD served me well for a few years. The extra floppy I have laying around in a box someplace may have come from that machine. The case, mobo, etc. Were either given away or sold for less than $10... it's been so long I don't recall much.

(plus lone InfoSrmative) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18141104)

moans and groans the most. LLok at recruitment, but Bunch of retarded

Worst I've seen (5, Funny)

Tawnos (1030370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141132)

When I worked at a computer repair shop, a woman brought in her system and said it was running slowly. I start the system up and expect there to be a bunch of virii. What I saw next shocked me.

After 30 minutes I'm looking at the default windows XP desktop. Immediately I know this is an illegal install, as the system had no sticker on it, and it looked too old to have had WinXP reasonably on it. I decide to see what service pack she's running, so I right click on my computer, click properties...and almost crap my pants. The system was running on a Cyrix M5 with 48MB of RAM. There were no service packs installed. She had about 30 worms installed and running on her system.

Sometimes, late at night, I wake up in a cold sweat thinking about the horror of such a system.

Overclocked to Install (1)

ChrisXS (816616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141194)

I once had to overclock a 486DX2-50 to 66mhz in order to install Win98SE. This was back in 98. I wound up putting two ISA NICs in it and used "Internet Connection Sharing" to make myself a router box for my brand new DSL line. I wound up leaving it overclocked and it was totally stable with an uptime of months on end though the longest period of time you could go without being forced to reboot after installing a critical update was about a few weeks. This was before cheap consumer routers were widely available. It served its purpose well for quite some time until I was DDoSed by a script kiddie on a DALnet chatroom. At the time Verizon used to actually hand out static IPs so I was at the mercy of this script kiddie until I finally got Verizon to give me a new IP.

Heh... (2, Funny)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141198)

[an error occurred while processing this directive] The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. [an error occurred while processing this directive]

They weren't by any chance hosting their website on that box too were they?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>