Windows Project XP

scoob8000?

scoob8000, thats nothing compared to my AMD K7T Pro @ 700MHz!

 

Well actually.

I dont know what i could do with xp as explorer.exe alone seems to need 4times the amount of memory as a win2k machine. I have on the other hand used windows 98 on a 486 DX2 (66mhz) and it ran fine although i actually did have 32megs of RAM. your best bet 123 is to try win98 and find yourself a few more megs of memory. You could also go for a unix type OS. perhaps freeBSD or linux (redhat or mandrake).

 

FNG, Thanks!

I an downloading Red Hat, but I am keeping the setup the same.

 

redhat won,t work since 7.2 needs at least 32mb of ram and 6.1 needs 16mb...

maybe if you put an old linux distribution...

win 98 needs 16mb of ram too

you ain't gonna get far with 8mb of ram... sorry

BUT win95 needs 8mb so I think it's about the only one you can put on that mummy

 

Dude, I got W95 on a PII 266 with 64Mb RAM and it just gets by. On 8Mb? Make yourself a cup of tea everytime you click a program icon... It works, but it works s l o w l y ...

 

yep!

I think that win 3.1 would be better ...
or just use the old msdos

 

123 try to get more ram

With so little ram you'll also cause excessive swapping killing your computers usefulness and wearing out your harddrive. I strongly recomend finding more memory to use on that machine. the more the better. Each application you use eats memory and with out more ram you will use swap space on your HD.

 

Your only chance of running anything short of DOS, is an LFS system, even then, you'll not get a GUI, as that requires to much. I believe teh smallest LFS made was about 85 MB, and ran off 12 MB of RAM. Which means with a bit more stripping, and more swapping you might jsut pull it off.

Otherwise, just dump that computer in a river somewhere.

 

Its been said before, Win 95 will fit and run ok, win 98lite will go too, but anything over windows 98 is a pipe dream, especially with the ram. The windows XP installer will reject the computer because it is lower than a 266 MHz proc, and wine ME will do the same because it is lower then a 150 MHz proc, you could however install it on the Hard disk from a faster computer, then try to boot into it fromnt he P 75 machine, it might just work. albeit slow, realllyyy freakin slow.

IMHO you can run win 95 on a 386 with 4 Megs, just, were talkin 5 minutes to boot through to the windows startup screen type slow.

 

As a semi experience multi os hacker, i would like to put a small amount of fresh air into this topic by making the outrageous claim that it might be possible.
as far as not being able to fit anything but dos on, thats utter malarkey, any number of scalable solutions exist. slightly older versions of FreeBSD, are of course what i would use, but thats just my Daemon lovin leaking out. there are several possible linux configurations for smaller architectures as well as a number of propreitary embedded type os's. As far as XP pro goes, that is in fact impossible.. however, microsoft does provide another solution; XP-Embedded. It uses the same binaries as xp pro, but in a compleatly modular format. this allows you to select what you want to install and what you dont.... I have successfully configured and installed images ranging from 80-170 mb, with the kernel, hardware support, Direct x 8 (over half of that is DirectX, i think) and a few custom apps. And the xp kernel is much much larger than any compareable unix kernel for embedded systems...

just my two cents

 

98 'chugged' on my 133, 1.5gb HDD, so good luck...

[^_^ // Dan]

 

Lets be truthful this is either a joke or a noobie, in that case *nix os'es will be way beyond him/her. The only real choices will be older windows or dos or OS/2 operating systems, but s/he hasn't said what s/he wants to use it for, then someone can recommend what s/he should plump for.

 

v3rt, hush i put up with 98 on that same 486-100 for close to two years.. then i bought a "300mhz" (note the quotes) cyrix m2 processor.. thought that was "fast".. lol



123, if you are serious, what is the point of doing this? to crunch seti? you wont have any cpu cycles left.. lol

-scoob8000

 

lol

i have successfully installed and run Windows XP Pro on a 133mhz P1 with 32mbs of ram. don't tell me i can't do something, cause ill find a way to do it just to prove you wrong.

 

Re: lol

I bet that was an enjoyable experience running that system.

 

For my two-penny-worth....

If you just like the Win 95/98/ME/XP look, then why not install Windows 3.1 with the Calmira shell? Great utility that in it's present form makes a dashed good facsimile of Win 98 etc. The system resources are therefore low too.

Also there is a whole web-site dedicated to getting Win 3.1 onto a single flopsome (and also minimising Win 32-bit O/S installs). Rats! I can't find the link for you!! Thought it was in my favourites. But it was certainly live a couple of weeks ago. Try Google. I'll post it if I find it again. Mutter... mutter... mutter...

 

Re: Project XP Home Page

Stupid site tries to make you install Gator spyware components ....... Beware

 

Get Popup Manager!

I tried to go there, and it stoped the gater crap from comming up, witch this is the fist time it worked! To get Popup Manager, Click here. , and then install it and upgrade it to the latest vertion, then, go to: http://www.4x4vodofx.bravepages.com/index.html and it should disapear. NOTE: PLEASE GO TO THE POPUP MANAGER OPTONS AND TURN THE " "OPTON OFF. (IT CAN BE VERY ANNOYING.)


__________________________________________________123

 

I think its time you crack open the many 3.1 disketts and start inserting as this is the only OS that will work I mihgt have a copy somewhere

 

I Got windows me on a 486 with 8 megs of ram before just make sure you type setup.exe /nm then it ignores the systems speed but im not sure about winxp