Whoe, 4 MB RAM? Steam powered computer?

I used to run Linux on a 4MB IBM PS1 25MHz sx486 with a 40MB HDD - those were the days.

2 members found this post helpful.

Oops! Bloomer! I meant 4 GB of course. Thanks for noticing. At least I know my posts get read.

Those were the specs of my first computer, back in '94. Running Windows for Workgroups 3.11, though. It would be another 7 years before I knew about BSD and Linux.

I read somewhere that when the first IBM PC came out with its 1 MB of RAM, the chief executive's father said it was a ridiculous idea giving it so much memory. No ordinary user would ever need that much.

1 members found this post helpful.

wut

Attached Thumbnails

 

Could you identity what links are before posting them? At the very least that they are worksafe.

My first (Linux) computer was a 8 MB 486dx2/66 (a bit newer then yours) with a 540 MB disk.
And yes, it did run Linux (Slackware 1.1.2 at that time, 1994), although it originally came with MS-Dos 6.0 and Windows 3.11.
I still got that computer, although it isn't running Linux anymore, even though it has been updated to a whopping 16 MB of RAM (pure Dos 6.21 with optional WfW 3.11 now).

1 MB maximum, but effectively there was a maximum of 640 KB; it was released with only 64 KB on board.
BTW: my first IBM PC clone came with 256 KB of RAM

I used to work on an ICL mainframe that had 96 kB of RAM and we considered that a powerful machine.

Seriously? We can talk exclusively either about ThreadRippers and multiple thousands worth boxes or about hardware from '70 ?

I thought that "older computers" refers to something driven by a CPU on AM2 or 775 sockets for example, not about ancient hardware.

Please take no ofense, I love the stories about WfW, as I love also my grandpa's stories about how he fought on Stalingrad, but I am feed up about those MSDOS 5 era stories, just like about the ones from someone with a Texan hat and smoking a Cuban cigar, explaining us that buying annually a $1000 video-card is very cheap.

Honestly, I had hope for this thread, as a place where to discuss about my own "older computers", but I am really disappointed about this "grandpa's takeover" which happen always.

This thread welcomes talking about old computers considered old by anyone's perspective.

If you want to talk about Socket Am2 and 775 machines go for it, but please don't complain and offer nothing to contribute.

Side note:
I got my wife's 2010 Asus U43F up and running recently. Funny story really..

The bios has a bug in it that completely breaks Windows 10 support. This laptop has a core i5 dual core and 8 gigs of ram. There's no reason whatsoever you couldn't run 10 on it competently. Microsoft told Asus to update their bios. Asus told Microsoft to fix Windows 10. The end user gets left holding the bag.

An SSD I had lying around, a new battery off ebay for like $12..an install of Slackware.. and this is now a very usable and responsive laptop for day to day tasks.

2 members found this post helpful.

It depends, of course, what you mean by "older".
My main computer (the most powerful one) you would probably already consider as "older", as it's a Core 2 Duo at 3 GHz, with 4 GB of RAM (HP xw4600 workstation of about 2008).

2 members found this post helpful.

That's proprietary software for you!
That just about describes my new (pre-loved) Lenovo tower except that is quad-core.

1 members found this post helpful.