[I Fix 4 U]

OK how the heck can win3.11 workstation run on an old crappy 7-8 MB ram 386 but I cant get any linux distro to run Xwindow on that system. I mean is 3.11 just more resource friendly friendly? It can't be could it. I really want to run X on that system with some linux programs is there any distro that can actually do that. I heard 3.11 runs over dos and only uses 3 MB ram. On my system Lotus notes actually flies in 3.11 so why cant linux do the same or even better... help not wanted, it is needed.

[Squashman]

Windows 3.1 came out 14 years ago. Linux was just starting to be coded then. I doubt you will be able to run the latest and greatest Linux Distributions on a 486 or even a Pentium. You will probably have to find an older version of Suse, Red Hat or Debian. I would think that Red Hat 5 or 6 would run on a 386.

[I Fix 4 U]

5.2 i have, and i haven't tried yet because i dont have a cd rom drive. i already know new distros wont work on it.

[lynch]

X alone is going to take 4 to 5 MB of ram. Then at least a couple more for a DM and desktop. Even if you increased the ram, that system will probably max out at a low number, 32 MB if that. Linux should run on that machine without X as Linux was designed for the 386 platform.
Win 3.11 was just a program running over DOS so it was designed to work with the memory limitations of DOS.
So, here's a chance to improve your command line skills without the distraction of KDE or Gnome.
HTH
lynch

[I Fix 4 U]

U sure there isnt any 2MB Xserver. I have found a window manager that will run in under 4MB for old laptops. Seriously if i could add a desktop, window manager, and basic X11, than i could compile lite programs like the old netscape navigator to run minimally on that system and have a nice old computer.

I see what you mean about 3.11 its just like a new shell not much of an OS, kinda like in the days when you could boot directly into DOSSHELL or in linux MC.

P.S. no doubt command line mode runs better than dos or windows on that system. I have tried it before its like its new, everything loads near instantly.

[Topato]

Windows 3.1 was designed to be used with such an old system. When the first linux distros came out, they required top of the line computers. setting them 2 years ahead of the standard of the day.

Last time i tried to load RedHat 3.something on an old 386, i couldn't even boot onto the CD. Of course it's all for the best as that laptop was destroyed the next day as attempted to build a rubber shell to protect from unexpected falls.

[I Fix 4 U]

I have gotten over the compatability argument but this discovery takes the whole thread to a new level:

UMM.... X was created around the late 80s while win3.1 wasnt out until '92. Dont you think that X should have been more mature than windows, it was being developed by the guys at MIT cmon people yall let microsoft beat you.

[tsunam]

hmm lets see, microsoft was started out of a basement/garage...and as it was stated that 3.11 was a shell for dos 6.22. A shell just is a layer on top of the base.

Also there's a difference in hardware that was available to the windows guys vrs MIT at the time. MIT certaintly had a good bit more hardware and power then microsoft.

YOu have to take that into consideration. Also on a computer of that age..almost no one would run a X windows set on it. Just use a cli.

[I Fix 4 U]

Oh i get it linux at MIT was designed with MIT hardware in mind, not some boys with old 286s in billy's garage. So although it was better it wasnt widespread and was not designed for what microsoft had in mind or would use. Dos's shell was for typical personal computers while X11 was another miracle from MIT.

[tsunam]

Linux, I don't think was ever meant to be a killer of microsoft. There was no competition. You are talking about something that has come out of the Education enviroment (lets make no jokes about this...linux and bsd have had a lot of their support come from the university systems). Coming out of a Educational enviroment, its not something that was designed for the average consumer to use. Obiviously since linux isn't on everyone's desktop. That is truely the difference between microsoft and the overall linux/gnu (since linux is just a kernel that allows you to communicate with the hardware).

Microsoft wanted to be on everyone's desktop and thats why they have gone the way they did and make it available to people who had the tandy computer...or the PC clones (as they were called back in the day).

Truely, university people are in their own little world thats seperate from the rest of us. Modern development of the gnu/linux enviroment has been done by dedicated people in the IT field who do it as a hobby..mostly (there's some exceptions Daniel Robbins (creator of the gentoo distro) who did it 40+ hours a week as a job, without complaint. He recently stepped down from leading it to get a actual paying job to take care of his debt associated with developing gentoo and support his family)

It truely is just the difference between being in a university vrs the real world

[I Fix 4 U]

Yah thats what i was coming too. There are a few university developed projects that no one else would ever use. Linux just was not one of those because soon enough some geeks started to take it in as a hobby and then it became more widespread.

[soybean]

what is this box supposed to do? you could get x running under monkeylinux in that but monkey uses kernel2.0.39

[I Fix 4 U]

wow monkey looks like it will run on my 386.

[Topato]

For a little history link to modern times, when MIT rewrote their 'W' (stands for windowing system) in 1984 they proceeded to the next letter of the alphabet. This rewrite has evolved into today's X Windowing System. I wonder where microsoft got the idea.....

[I Fix 4 U]

billy looked at apple and said, "good idea"