There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Linux distro for an ancient Pentium PC

I need some help finding a distro for a very old machine.

It’s my family’s old desktop with 2001 components (bought in 2004) and a Pentium CPU that is NOT i686. I checked the exact model and architecture once but I don’t remember it now. The only thing I remember is that it’s not i686 so 99% of modern 32 bit distros don’t work on it (stuck right after grub).

The machine has 1 Gb of DDR1 RAM though so I think it may be useful or at least fun to play around with.

Now it’s on Windows XP that runs quite well but doesn’t support modern SSL certificates so it can’t browse the internet (idk how to fix it ok?).

A long time ago I tried to run multiple distros in live mode on it and got only one (Puppy) to work. Display, sound, ethernet and pretty much everything worked fine. GPU seemed to be an issue though because NVidia and I couldn’t install the driver (it was skill issue and I think it’s possible to do). But now it doesn’t work for some reason.

Are there any Linux distros or other operating systems (preferably not deprecated) that I can install on it? And btw it does have bootable USB support.

EDIT: There are way too many answers and a lot of ones that don’t mind the architecture limitations. I’m grateful to everyone who replied but I have to close this discussion now and I will not reply to further answers. I have received enough information and I cannot physically read so many replies.

AbidanYre ,

Tiny Core would probably run on it.

I have it on a PII 333MHz with 192MB of RAM from 1999. It grinds to a halt if I try to open pretty much any modern website though.

GolfNovemberUniform OP ,
@GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml avatar

I just checked it and it seems to be an independent distro. Does it have a repo or do I have to compile everything I want to install?

AbidanYre ,

It has a repo with programs you can install. The selection is fairly limited though.

wiki.tinycorelinux.net/doku.php?id=wiki:install_a…

That computer is in the basement and I’m not having any luck finding a list of what’s available.

GolfNovemberUniform OP ,
@GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml avatar

Hmm I can’t find a browseable repo so idk if there’s anything useful for it but I might check it out. Thanks

qprimed ,

the repos are browsable inside the package manager - I would imagine they are browsable outside as well, but I have never had cause to do so.

honestly, give tinycore a shot. fire it up in a VM and take a look around - it really is an amazingly useful distro.

GolfNovemberUniform OP ,
@GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml avatar

My main Linux machine is too slow to run a VM of any kind

qprimed ,

understood. tinycore is a live installable distro, so you can still test it on bare metal.

pick the GUI flavor and kick the tires for a while.

superweeniehutjrs ,

If you do compile something, it is very easy to make it an installable package you could share. I’m not sure how the repos are managed

cocolopez ,
@cocolopez@lemmy.world avatar

Void with Xfce has done wonders to my atom cpu with 2 GB of ram. Also iceWM has seen a new release that might worth checking

GolfNovemberUniform OP ,
@GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml avatar

Void doesn’t support the CPU architecture of that machine

nossaquesapao ,

A long time ago I tried to run multiple distros in live mode on it and got only one (Puppy) to work. Display, sound, ethernet and pretty much everything worked fine. GPU seemed to be an issue though because NVidia and I couldn’t install the driver (it was skill issue and I think it’s possible to do). But now it doesn’t work for some reason.

Puppy linux has 3 versions, based on different distros. Maybe you tried one version back then, and now a different one?

GolfNovemberUniform OP ,
@GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml avatar

I know and I think I tried the same version

fpslem ,

Puppy was going to me my suggestion too, before I read that you’d already used it. Maybe try some of the other versions? If you used a Debian- or Ubuntu-based Puppy, you could try a Slack-based one, or vice-versa. Puppy’s organization is a little confusing, in my opinion, but it does give a user some options. You also might try some of the “puplets” that aren’t official Puppy distros but are part of the Puppy family.

puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/family-tree.html

Telorand ,

Dunno if it would work or not, but I wonder if a minimal NixOS install would work.

GolfNovemberUniform OP ,
@GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml avatar

I think it’s easier to write your own kernel from scratch than learning how to install something in Nix lol

Telorand ,

It’s not that bad 😆. But there’s definitely a learning curve, something I’m working on figuring out myself, at the moment. There’s some practice guides, but it’s certainly a unique beast.

Dirk ,
@Dirk@lemmy.ml avatar

Maybe let go of this ancient hardware? Seriously: Get a Raspberry Pi (or whatever SOC computer is the latest trend) and install whatever distribution you want. You get 100x the performance for 100x less power consumption. It’s great to reuse old hardware and all, but THAT old?

GolfNovemberUniform OP ,
@GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml avatar

It’s just for experiments and learning. Why judging? Also a Pi is like $100 here and it is a big deal for me

ashaman2007 ,

Looks like a whole bunch of conversation about this topic can be found here:

…stackexchange.com/…/which-linux-or-bsd-distribut…

turbowafflz ,

Perhaps openbsd or netbsd? They’re probably less likely to drop hardware support for your device in the near future than any linux distribution

Freebsd is also an option but you would have to compile it yourself as the prebuilt binaries are currently 686 despite it having support back to 486

GolfNovemberUniform OP ,
@GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml avatar

BSD is an option but I heard it’s slower and idk anything about how it works and how to install it

turbowafflz ,

I’ve never noticed BSDs being much slower, and if you’re already used to minimal linux distros like arch it’s not that hard to set them up unless you like need linux-only software.

GolfNovemberUniform OP ,
@GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml avatar

I meant slower in terms of any rendering (web, 3D or anything else). And I’m only used to graphical DEs. I installed Arch via archinstall a few times and had a minimal Debian server with nothing except ssh working but that’s about it

turbowafflz ,

You definitely can install a graphical desktop on whichever BSD, you’ll just have to follow instructions online somewhere instead of running a premade script.

If you want something really easy to use graphically right out of the box there’s also Haiku, it’s a completely independent OS that’s sort of an open source clone of BeOS but a lot more unixy than BeOS was. It’s really lightweight and has maybe my favorite desktop GUI out of every operating system I’ve used. The only real downside to it is that there isn’t an amazing web browser for it yet, the built in WebPositive is a little lacking in support for modern sites and GNOME Web, which you can install from HaikuDepot was a little unstable last time I tried it. If you don’t need to use the web a ton though (which is probably the more pleasant option on your particular system regardless of browser), it’s really nice.

hagar ,

Your mileage may vary for performance. It really depends what OS and what hardware. In my experience saying all BSDs are slower at rendering would be too broad a statement.

If you’ve done Arch and Debian server installs, you’ll be fine installing a major BSD. Just answer prompts and you are done, particularly if you are using the default disk partitioning scheme. Consider NetBSD. It’s known for its wide hardware compatibility. X is pre-installed, just “startx”.

Pacmanlives ,

Not sure where you have heard they are slower. Most of my experience has they are faster but I will say BSD kind of sucks on a laptop.

I would see what’s supported and then run something like Fluxbox as your WM

cyborganism ,

Technically, Ubuntu supports it’s LTS versions for something like 12 years I think?

Anyway, you can get Ubuntu 14.04 LTS still with the i386 32bit ISO.

www.releases.ubuntu.com/14.04/

I personally would install that and install something like FVWM95 or Blackbox WM or some other ancien desktop environment.

ipacialsection ,
@ipacialsection@startrek.website avatar

Damn Small Linux is a recently resurrected distro made specifically to run on old 32-bit PCs. You probably won’t be doing much web browsing or gaming on this device, but you should at least be able to get it to function

hagar ,

Consider antiX. It’s very lightweight, supports 32 bit and you’ll have access to the Debian Repos.

fuzzy_feeling ,

antix never let me down…
looks like they have an i386 iso.
ftp.halifax.rwth-aachen.de/mxlinux/…/antiX-23.1/

LeFantome ,

Antix 23.1 is based on Debian bookworm, so I think it requires i686 now. Older Antix releases ( based on Bullseye or earlier ) should work.

fuzzy_feeling ,

haven’t testet, but looks like there are bookworm i386 isos.
cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/…/iso-cd/

LeFantome ,

They are really i686 though ( from Bookworm on ).

LeFantome ,

On Debian, i386 is now i686.

www.debian.org/releases/…/ch-information.en.html#…

Frederic ,

At least if you want to play with it in XP, install mypal browser www.mypal-browser.org I have had success with it on a XP machine, it loads facebook, reddit, lemmy.world, etc.

For an old distro, have you tried AntiX 32 bits?

bloodfart ,

There’s gentoo options for a lot of older architectures. I even got it running on a 32bit power machine.

Back in the day gentoo meant compiling everything from source, but nowadays there’s precompiled binaries.

If you’re doing the evanescence routine on older hardware, check to see if there’s cheap ram and ssds available that work with its interfaces. Usually the trick with pata is to use old cf to sata adapters because cf is pin compatible with the little pata interfaces they’d put on laptops.

Consider cleaning and reapplying thermal paste to the cpu. You won’t even need to take it out of the socket, just don’t dump isopropyl all over the board while cleaning.

If your old computer has a cool old sound card there’s never been a better time to use a tracker that takes advantage of its built in synthesizer!

nyan ,

I agree that Gentoo will probably work, as it still has functional i486 support. Be aware that you may be spending a lot of time compiling if you go that route and don’t have a second, faster machine to use for distcc or the like.

As for the nvidia card, the proprietary driver won’t work for something of that age. Check the supported cards in Nouveau (and maybe even the really old drivers for prehistoric cards). In a pinch, the vesa driver should work. Good luck.

dRLY ,
@dRLY@lemmy.ml avatar

doing the evanescence routine on older hardware

That was one of the best deep-cut comments I have read in a while! The helpful advise to OP was also nice. lol

gnuhaut ,

Are you sure it’s not a 686? Because apparently the Pentium Pro from 1995 is already a 686, by 2001 the Pentium 4 was already out.

GolfNovemberUniform OP ,
@GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml avatar

Yes I am sure it’s not 686. 686 distros don’t boot anyways

gnuhaut ,

I’m still skeptical. At the time of the original Pentium (the last 586 from Intel, the fastest of which was 300 MHz), the usual amount of RAM was something like 16 or 32 MB. A 586 with 1 GB of RAM is extremely weird and probably impossible unless it’s some sort of high-end server. This does not check out.

Oh and DDR is also from around the time of the Pentium 4. I don’t think there exists a machine that has both DDR and an original Pentium (aka 586). Again, this does not check out and is probably impossible.

There could be another reason it won’t boot.

jcarax ,

Yeah, I’m with you. 2001 and DDR… there’s something else going on with the failure to boot. I don’t think the Pentium 3 ever supported DDR, so this is probably a Pentium 4. If truly a model released in 2001, it would be Willamette, but that required RDRAM. DDR support was introduced with Northwood in 2002. On the other hand, it could be the P4 that was new in 2004, Prescott, and the 2001 statement comes from the first year the P4 was released.

qjkxbmwvz ,

We really need to see info from the BIOS — exact CPU model, RAM speed, etc.

As others have pointed out, this is a pretty anachronistic build — i586 with DDR1 is just weird, so it’s possible there’s some really niche hardware and you may need an exotic kernel (or kernel options) to get anything to boot.

That said: have you just tried running a standard live or install CD from that time period? You could try booting a 2001 Slackware installer to see what happens.

qwioeue ,

Ya, that’s exactly my thought. I had Penitum 1 and Pentium 3/4 during those years. Pretty sure they are 686 and beyond.

LeFantome ,

Could even be Cryix or a VIA or something from back then. VIA lacked cmov and will not boot i686.

Transform2942 ,

I found this in the wastelands of Google: howtogeek.com/linux-distributions-to-breathe-new-…

I read the guide and it seems pretty solid.

If it is not x86 is it the Itanium ISA?

nyan ,

If it were an Itanium, the OP would know it. They’re not common (and I doubt Puppy would have booted on such a system—it isn’t compatible with x86).

Also, support for that arch is being dropped from the Linux kernel as of 6.7.0, so looking for a supporting distro would be a fool’s quest (Gentoo still technically offers Itanium packages, but they’re on the way out.)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •