• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Best Operating System on Pentium Gear

mark66j said:
I haven't used Ubuntu server in a while, but I know that some recent Ubuntu desktop versions run NetworkManager by default, which will overwrite a lot of config files when trying to manage connections automatically. If you want a static IP you have to make sure it is not running.
Click to expand...

I am active on the Kubuntu forum and we get a lot of questions regarding a lack of network connection. No big surprise there, sometimes there are issues, but the standard answer is surprising: "uninstall NetworkManager." In 50% of the cases that's about all it takes. Apparently the developer has been notified but claims he is is still not aware that there is a problem, but it becomes obvious on a forum like that. Anyway, I personally prefer configuration files - it's quicker, easier, and it works - the alternative being slower, harder, and doesn't work. :D
 
Last edited:
Raven said:
I have no experience with OS/2 on any box, or Linux on a Pentium box. I've seen that older versions of Linux run well, and obviously someone wouldn't wanna throw Ubuntu 10 on there - would it even handle that?
.
Click to expand...

I tried running Ubuntu (actually Xubuntu but still similar) on a Pavilion 6530 (celeron 433 later I put a celeron 500Mhz in w/ 256 MB of RAM) and it was really slow. I put puppy Linux on it instead and it files. You could put DSL on it also (Damn Small Linux) Here are the requirements for both

DSL (minimum Req)
* 486dx or 100% compatible processor
* 16mb ram (24mb recommended)
* dual-speed CDROM (quad-speed or better recommended)
* 1.44mb floppy drive (for boot floppy, if needed)
* VGA monitor and video card
* a mouse (serial, ps/2, usb)

Puppy (Minimum Req)

* CPU : Pentium 166MMX
* RAM : 128 MB physical RAM for releases since version 1.0.2 or failing that a Linux swap file and/or swap partition is required for all included applications to run; 64 MB for releases previous to 1.0.2
* Hard Drive : Optional
* CDROM : 20x and up

I am by no means a Linux expert but I couldn't get DSL to work on my Pavilion it booted up and the graphics were all messed up and the mouse didn't work (well it did for 2 seconds then disappeared) So I used puppy.
 
Raven said:
What do you all use on your Pentium boxen and why?
Click to expand...
It depends on three things--what I plan to use it for, how much RAM, processor speed and HD space available.

The most I try to put on them is 98se, especially if they only have 64mb of RAM. 64mb=98se, 32mb=95. I don't have any that have more, but I just found out that my slew of pp180s can be upgraded to 512mb, so that's interesting. Portable Firefox 1.0 works on 98se, so you can browse at a reasonable clip as long as the site isn't full of a bunch of javascript and flash--that will slow things down a lot. And that's where the most important thing comes in--the use of the system. If it's just going to connect to the network and just be a file server, 95 with 32mb of RAM is fine for that. I actually have a file server with a promise ata133 card in it and some ata6 drives. It will copy at 22MB/sec from one drive to the other. :O And network performance isn't bad topping out at about 3MB/sec. I only use it for writing small files, so this works quite well.

Another one of the systems was used for browsing under 98se until the power supply had an issue. It was a pp180 with 96mb of RAM.

I have a 486DX33 with 20mb of RAM that runs win95 and MS Personal Web Server v1.0 (the only version they ever made, lol). It connects to the file server using Lantastic and can serve out files at 500k/sec--fast enough for the web.

I actually have more Pentium class hardware sitting around that I haven't had a chance to put to work yet. I'm going to set up some for continuously comparing files over a vpn, mirroring files over the vpn, but that's all I can figure out so far. These systems will probably keep running 95 with 32mb of ram. There's no point in upgrading them to the 512 unless I can figure out more tasks for them to do. Maybe I could just set up a SETI farm.
 
Getting modern programs running on 95 and 98 is a fun project, and upgrading the RAM in one of those boxen would assist in that. Also just wanted to pop in to say I'm still browsing this thread. :D
 
when it comes to older computer and operating systems i am stuck with windowz and dos because i don't know the old linux well enough to even install it. i usually use win98SE. i tried running Ubuntu on a p2 400mhz with 768MB memory and it ran pretty good. i kind of liked it. i just wish i knew it better.
 
I don't really feel the Windows 95/98 lure on Pentium. I mean, those operating systems were finicky and quite crash prone. They become painful as soon as you installed a couple of program outside of what was "in the box". Don't you remember the BSOD, several times a day?

On the other hand, OS/2 Warp, some ancient Linux like RedHat 6.2 (it was a major milestone in Linux world domination), SCO UNIX OpenDesktop, Windows NT 3.51/4.0, are more appealing to me: preemptive multitasking, memory protection, the whole advanced thing... on a modest Pentium.
 
The lure of 9x on a Pentium was speed, and all the apps and games it can run that NT at that time didn't like (or didn't support the hardware with drivers). I never had a BSOD every day or week even, kind of a rarity (unless you had bad hardware or drivers). About the only issue I had with 9x is that if you installed and uninstalled a million apps and games you needed a complete reformat about every 8-12 months because the system started to get slow.

NT/Unix would be best on workstation/server grade Pentium hardware with SCSI drives and maybe multiple processors plus plenty of RAM.

You can also experiment with Desqview/X and BEOS for something different or figure out how to setup a Novell server.
 
Mac collector said:
I tried running Ubuntu (actually Xubuntu but still similar) on a Pavilion 6530 (celeron 433 later I put a celeron 500Mhz in w/ 256 MB of RAM) and it was really slow. I put puppy Linux on it instead and it files. You could put DSL on it also (Damn Small Linux) Here are the requirements for both

DSL (minimum Req)
* 486dx or 100% compatible processor
* 16mb ram (24mb recommended)
* dual-speed CDROM (quad-speed or better recommended)
* 1.44mb floppy drive (for boot floppy, if needed)
* VGA monitor and video card
* a mouse (serial, ps/2, usb)

Puppy (Minimum Req)

* CPU : Pentium 166MMX
* RAM : 128 MB physical RAM for releases since version 1.0.2 or failing that a Linux swap file and/or swap partition is required for all included applications to run; 64 MB for releases previous to 1.0.2
* Hard Drive : Optional
* CDROM : 20x and up

I am by no means a Linux expert but I couldn't get DSL to work on my Pavilion it booted up and the graphics were all messed up and the mouse didn't work (well it did for 2 seconds then disappeared) So I used puppy.
Click to expand...

Puppy you say?? I have an old PPro 180 and I wanted to milk the most of it to keep it around/used but the Win98se on it just pokes along due to a lack of RAM and I'm too lazy to troll for more.

Thanks for the tip.. I'll have to try it in my downtime over the holidays! ;)
 
Unknown_K said:
NT/Unix would be best on workstation/server grade Pentium hardware with SCSI drives and maybe multiple processors plus plenty of RAM.
Click to expand...
But a Pentium with a 20 GB IDE HDD is as fast as a Pentium with a 2 GB SCSI HDD, because of the higher data density. Early NT/Unix on PC usually ran with 2GB SCSI hard disks, but it's better and faster to use those Pentium machines now with a somewhat bigger IDE disk. Also, early NT/Unix on the PC didn't ask for much RAM, 64 MB would be more than enough.

Some early UNIX for the PC, however, asked for SCSI CD-ROM and didn't support ATAPI CD-ROMs (I'm talking SCO UNIX 4.x).

Unknown_K said:
You can also experiment with Desqview/X and BEOS for something different or figure out how to setup a Novell server.
Click to expand...

Novell is my idea of a dungeon. I prefer anything over running it, unless I get paid for using it.
 
Pepinno said:
But a Pentium with a 20 GB IDE HDD is as fast as a Pentium with a 2 GB SCSI HDD, because of the higher data density.
Click to expand...
The hard drive transfer speed might be just as fast, but you have to remember that the CPU utilization for the SCSI system will be much, much lower. It's why I always built SCSI-based systems during this era. You got more out of the system because disk IO didn't kill the CPU.
 
Unknown_K said:
Plus you can use a newer bigger faster 10K RPM SCSI drive instead of those older 5400RPM ones.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go larger than the 9 or 18gb models. And they were heavy duty on the heat and power. The one system I have with two 2nd generation 9gb Cheetahs had 17 fans in it. :O
 
ChrisRich said:
Puppy you say?? I have an old PPro 180 and I wanted to milk the most of it to keep it around/used but the Win98se on it just pokes along due to a lack of RAM and I'm too lazy to troll for more.

Thanks for the tip.. I'll have to try it in my downtime over the holidays! ;)
Click to expand...

Try to use a true 32 bit operating system. Windows 98 still contains a lot of 16 bit code, which the pentium pro only runs very slowly. If you want to stick with the socket 8 sytem, hunt for a pentium II overdrive.
 
TNC said:
Try to use a true 32 bit operating system. Windows 98 still contains a lot of 16 bit code, which the pentium pro only runs very slowly.
Click to expand...
Very good advice! I forgot about that. I bet win2k will run pretty nice on it with 128mb of RAM.
 
Unknown_K said:
Even with 16 bit code a Ppro 200 with 256K cache should outrun a P200 easily.
Click to expand...
It's actually not as quick as you'd think. A 233 MMX is pretty much right there with it in normal usage. CPU intensive stuff like mp3 encoding is a bit quicker, especially if 32-bit.
 
Well I was comparing CPUs at the same speed, a 233 is clocked 16% higher then a 200. With 32 bit code the difference will be even more in favor of the PPro. Granted at the time of sale a PPro would have cost a heck of a lot more then a P200 so it didn't make sense for somebody to pay the difference to run Windows 95 on a PPro. These days the price differential is not all that great unless you want a 512/1MB cache model PPro, and regular Pentiums are not that common at the scrapper (most of what I seen were MMX varieties of the Pentium in the plastic housings).
 
Unknown_K said:
Well I was comparing CPUs at the same speed, a 233 is clocked 16% higher then a 200. With 32 bit code the difference will be even more in favor of the PPro. Granted at the time of sale a PPro would have cost a heck of a lot more then a P200 so it didn't make sense for somebody to pay the difference to run Windows 95 on a PPro. These days the price differential is not all that great unless you want a 512/1MB cache model PPro, and regular Pentiums are not that common at the scrapper (most of what I seen were MMX varieties of the Pentium in the plastic housings).
Click to expand...
I've run one of my PPros with 95 and with NT, and the difference wasn't noticeable. In fact, I never used NT on it again and went with 95 on the rest of the installs. I have a p3-300 that runs win98se and my 95-based pp180 feels just as fast on OS functions (can't run much more on it as it's a file server).

I just remember when I bought the ppros and expected them to be so much quicker at mp3 encoding than a p133, and I wasn't impressed. That's when encoding an album took 8hrs on the p133, lol.
 
I'll have to try that. I have a bunch of IBMs that can take a second processor and they all came with NT, so I could re-install that. I wonder if it would be fast enough for some decent web browsing without flash? These days even the javascript takes too long to crunch. The client has to do a lot of processing on sites these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top