Knight
December 7th 03, 02:04 AM
Look I am not claiming that it will be a pleasent desktop adventure using XP
on a 486. But It can be installed and it can be done. So the challange has
been won.
This all started when someone wanted to find out if he could find a power
supply for a 486.
Cassandra scolded him. But I said that we CAN accept that question in this
newsgroup because in one way or the other you can have XP on a 486 desktop.
Thus that machine will need the power for having XP on its screen.
And I further explained that you can have the desktop on a far less
powerfull system.
So the question here is not one of practical use... but I am trying actually
to make the so called "NET COPS" and other people who are continuisly
negative...who keep complaining about things being out of subject that
things may be more realavent than they think. And that they should not just
shoo away people asking simple questions. One reason for this
is simple.... the people who are asking the simplest questions and come here
are the ones who will find it difficult to go to another newsgroup.
You can read all my posts about XP on a slow machine in this newsgroup on
day 18 of this month.
Here is one that discribes what you said about servers.... se we think
alike:
.................................................. .
Now,
I have installed XP on a Pentium 90 with 64 mb ram. Why did I do this? I
will tell you why....
Windows 2000 workstation could be installed on a Pentium 133 with 64 mb ram.
The fastest 486, if you recall was 120 MHZ, that was as fast as a Pentium 75
(the first pentiums).
Xp is actually based on windows 2000, having the kernel 5.1, windows 2000
had 5.0.
I wanted to test the LOWER limits of XP... and saw that I could have gone
even lower!
So.... If I could install XP on a Pentium 90, I sure could have done it on a
Pentium 75, that is equivalent to the 486 @120 MHz.
Of course it will need tweaking.... removing all the extra eye candy, having
a fast disk too would help.
But you may say THAT computer will not be usable, it will be too slow.
You are WRONG. Computers can be used for many reasons not only for desktop
use. A computer can be plugged in to a printer and have only that function.
Or can be connected to the internet with a 56 modem and share that
connection via a LAN card.
Thus you CAN have XP on a 486 (I am talking about the last generation of
this series), and IT CAN have a use.
By why should you make all that effort? I ask you this: why do overclockers
go like crazy when they get some more speed out of there CPU? It stupid,
because in 6 months there will be a chip that works that fast normally
without overclocking. But they are doing it because IT CAN BE DONE.
Therefore AGW's original post can stand in this newsgroup and Cassandra is
just being her usual grumpy self.
But this is a newsgroup for HELPING not grumping. Every post I see from her
is like that.....
Bruce I know you are an MVP, but you must not forget that once upon a time a
486 was a mighty machine ;-)
Bruce, I have invited Kelly to participate in a new site I am making... I
would be honored if you could post some things there from time to time,
perhaps include some content in a newsletter? The Url will be
www.computerboom.net .
I would like to have some MVPs aboard, kinda make it a friendly meeting
place for the masters of XP and a place where people can find useful info.
What do you say?
Kenny
"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings --
>
> Actually, Packard Bell once made a 486DX2 66 MHz machine that had
> 6 SIMM slots. And 72-pin SIMMs were available in sizes up to at least
> 32 Mb, that I recall using. ;-} The older, 30-pin SIMMs weren't
> available in such "large" sizes, though.
>
> But, overall, you're right. Trying to put WinXP onto a 486 would
> be an exercise in futility.
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> ----
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
>
> "Amethyst" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A 486 took SIMMs which had to be installed in pairs. They didn't,
> IIRC, come
> > in sizes any bigger than 8MB and the motherboard could only
> recognise about
> > 32MB (we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I
> also
> > never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my
> have been
> > some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you
> put
> > 64MB into a 486?
> >
> > I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
> DX-66. Do
> > post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> whether
> > you achieve this.
> >
> > --
> > Cassandra
> > Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People
> Too!'
> >
> > Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults,
> bequests
> > of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co
> (dot)
> > uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> > Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please
> post all
> > correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.
> >
> >
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.490 / Virus Database: 289 - Release Date: 16/6/2003
--
......Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to give
me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
will know if my advice helped them or not.
Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
www.computerboom.net
"G.Danes" > wrote in message
...
> I'm confused a little. Talking two totally different issues in this post.
> One is correct, the other is the challenge as I understand it.
>
> Yes you can run TS client on most anything. TS can run as a client or
> simply in an Internet browser albeit not sure how far down the browser
> support goes, would think 5.x.
>
> PDA clients are old news (been in the works for sometime) and would assume
> same client or even spin-off will eventually work with mobile/cell phones
> that take pictures and all. Still not the point of this discussion.
>
> If your taking his/her challenge to install XP on a 486 and having it work
> correctly were it's functional beyond being an XP logo picture on a
screen,
> NOT a remote session of XP but installed and fully functional, I think
> that's the challenge.
>
> Like you, I also have 25 years and I believe as you do in getting the most
> out of old equipment. Can easily make them print servers, fax server or
> anything else since quote "Server" as you and I both know is not about the
> machine as it is the application. Some tend to think when they hear
Server,
> it means some high end hardware where it's the application that makes it a
> server. Many uses for older equipment and if nothing else, YOU made
others
> aware of uses for those old machines.
>
> Getting XP to run properly on 486 or older system is crazy. Can it be
done,
> sure. ALL RULES GET BROKEN but some are more insane than others and not
> worth the effort. People using 95 (dates the hardware) struggle with
> getting XP to run properly. They have to track down drivers from
> manufacturers, do repair installs, get BSODs, IRQ Equal to errors etc..
> They go insane and most opt to go back to 95 or just upgrade to 98. I'm
not
> implying nobody was successful but it was a headache for them with 95
since
> the hardware is generally older than those using 98...
>
> Now we talk of 486's, remember more legacy issues down to chipsets. What
> PnP you had is outdated and not supported as well. Most manufacturers
will
> not go back and support something so outdated so attempting to get XP to
> install locally and function properly is a very real challenge. I doubt
you
> could do it without popping back in here under another assumed name asking
> for help. I may have missed something and I apologize if I did but I
think
> that's the challenge. Not running XP in a remote session.
>
> If you want to get down to it, you could probably in theory still run a
real
> dumb terminal with an Arcnet Boot prom, run WFW 3.x off a server, grab
> local internet connection off server and do remote session with an XP or
2k
> machine then view at dumb terminal via arcnet, but why? Maybe someday as
> you said, some programmer will right a small enough client that it may
even
> fit on to a bootprom, but again why? This still doesn't address the
> challenge just side-tracked with your conversion about
>
> Reason I'm confused is you spoke of remote sessions which made sense, (you
> can use older machines and OS to have a remote session of XP) but then you
> said
> "On these machines I can run XP. even if it means installing xp on
another
> machine so the installation will be faster and then placing the drive on
the
> 486".
>
> Not only will it fail when it polls for votes (examining your previous
> hardware), it's going to freak when it gets to those old chipsets not to
> mention other legacy or unsupported PnP devices from 199x... No sooner
than
> you think you have it working, BSOD. I think that's the challenge?
>
> The only clarification I see made from Cassandra's to your's is you don't
> need XP on both systems to do remote desktop. I'll add another, you can
> exceed 64 megs on a 486 and many boards had 4 slots for RAM. None of
this
> will change anything though... It still leaves the challenge. Can you
> install XP on 486, sure, will it work correctly, doub't it. You would
end
> up spending more time on this board looking for answers to get things to
> work as they should.
>
> Unrelated but just on another comment you made, I thought WFW was the last
> OS that recommended 4 megs RAM minimum. Thought 95 was 8, 98 was 16.
Most
> users would double that for performance. Maybe I'm mistaken, age does
that
> I guess.. ;c)
>
> JMT....
>
> GD
>
>
>
>
> "Knight" > wrote in message
> ...
> : I replied to your challenge... please read the post about running XP on
a
> : 486.
> : Not only that.... I state there that you can use XP on a far less
> powerfull
> : machine.
> : Cassandra not only cant you see the future... but is seems you have
> : forgotten the past.
> : There is no future without a past.
> :
> : Here is your grand challenge....
> :
> : >I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
DX-66.
> Do
> : >post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> : whether
> : >you achieve this.
> :
> : You forget that you can do much with very little if you know how to use
> : things in a smart way.
> :
> :
> : ______ reposting my reply to you for quick reference_________________
> :
> : Kenny said...
> :
> :
> : Unfortunately you are totally incorrect about everything. And I am
> sober...
> : and correct of course.
> : Keep reading and you will see that not only do I take up your challenge
> but
> : get away with FAR less computer power!
> : How much less.... you will see.... stay with me and be amazed :-)
> :
> : >Of course you'll have XP on your desktop - on the system you installed
it
> : on. You need XP installed on both systems for remote desktop to work -
> and,
> : as a 486 can only just run 95, you might want to rethink that statement.
> :
> : ------Totally wrong, an MVP will explain this to you. You can run a
> remote
> : desktop CLIENT on any 32 bit windows platform.
> :
> :
> : >we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I also
> : never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my have
> been
> : some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you put
> : 64MB into a 486?
> :
> : ----Wrong again... you COULD have 486 running @ 120 Mhz with 64 mb ram,
> This
> : is equivalent to a Pentium 75.
> :
> : As you can see from another poster...
> :
> : > > Actually, Packard Bell once made a 486DX2 66 MHz machine that
had
> : > > 6 SIMM slots. And 72-pin SIMMs were available in sizes up to at
least
> : > > 32 Mb, that I recall using. ;-}
> :
> :
> : -->I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
> DX-66.
> : Do
> : post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> whether
> : you achieve this.
> :
> : I never said the nature of the 486. I meant the fastest available 486 in
> the
> : market that was then @100 mhz, 120 Mhz and I think the last one was at a
> : whooping 133 mhz. On these machines I can run XP. even if it means
> : installing xp on another machine so the installation will be faster and
> then
> : placing the drive on the 486.
> :
> : Nevertheless you can run windows 95 and the remote desktop client on a
386
> : (because it is
> : 32 bit) and with 8 mb ram (this is what win95 needs to run). If you have
> : remote desktop you can log onto XP, windows2000, or even windows 2003
that
> : has very advanced terminal services.
> : You know what else you can do? You can run a remote client on a 386 with
> : windows 95 and 4 mb of ram, by having 8 mb during the installation of
> win95
> : and then REMOVING the other 4.
> : So this is the smallest limit for a computer that is running WINDOWS
> remote
> : desktop client. BUT noone says that you cannot create a remote desktop
for
> : older machines.
> : There are some programmers that have created such software for the
> AMIGA....
> : that computer has 500k and 4mhz (I think CPU).
> : You can probably go even lower..... I dare say a spectrum. Yes... there
> : might be a genius programmer out there that can create a client for
> windows
> : terminal servers that can fit into 48kb ram (the spectrum I think ran at
2
> : mhz, I still have one). Of course you will have color and resolution
> : limitations.... but you will still be able to control thus RUN xp from
> that
> : machine.
> :
> : Ok here is the point where you think I am crazy.....that I am talking
> about
> : 25 year old technology... and that all this is useless.
> :
> : DO you think that the creators of THIS:
> : http://www.thinsoftinc.com/products_winconnectz_info.html
> : were not thinking about everything I have said here?
> :
> : Yes let your eyes feast on this.... running XP on a PDA!!!
> :
> : Bruce are you with me???
> :
> : Bruce, I have invited Kelly (MVP) to participate in a new site I am
> : making... I
> : would be honored if you could post some things there from time to time,
> : perhaps include some content in a newsletter? The Url will be
> : www.computerboom.net .
> : I would like to have some MVPs aboard, kinda make it a friendly meeting
> : place for the masters of XP and a place where people can find useful
info.
> :
> : What do you say?
> :
> :
> : Kenny.... www.computerboom.net coming shortly stay tuned
> :
> : :-)
> :
> :
> : And my LAST comment is this....
> :
> :
> : .....Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
> :
> : For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to
> give
> : me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
> : will know if my advice helped them or not.
> :
> : Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
> : www.computerboom.net
> :
> :
> : "Amethyst" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > Knight wrote:
> : > > I dont like your attitude.
> : > > You can run a remote desktop connection from a 486, to an XP pro
> : computer.
> : > > Thus you will actually have XP on your desktop.
> : > >
> : > > A 486 CAN run XP if it has enough ram. It will work very slow but
that
> : is
> : > > not YOUR problem is it?
> : > >
> : > > If you cant give advice just dont say anything.
> : >
> : > You've been hitting the liquor mighty hard haven't you?! Do you
actually
> : > know what the blibbins you're blathering on about? Do you actually
know
> : what
> : > the minimum requirements for XP are? A 486 is barely capable of
running
> : 98,
> : > let alone XP!
> : >
> : > Of course you'll have XP on your desktop - on the system you installed
> it
> : > on. You need XP installed on both systems for remote desktop to work -
> : and,
> : > as a 486 can only just run 95, you might want to rethink that
statement.
> : >
> : > Now, those minimum specs: -
> : >
> : > a.. PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed
recommended;
> : 233
> : > MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel
> : > Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible
> : > processor recommended
> : > b.. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum
> : > supported; may limit performance and some features)
> : > c.. 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
> : > d.. Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and
> monitor
> : > e.. CD-ROM or DVD drive
> : > f.. Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
> : > I don't recall ever seeing a 486 a) with a 300MHz clock and b) called
a
> : > 'Pentium'.
> : >
> : > A 486 took SIMMs which had to be installed in pairs. They didn't,
IIRC,
> : come
> : > in sizes any bigger than 8MB and the motherboard could only recognise
> : about
> : > 32MB (we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I
> also
> : > never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my
have
> : been
> : > some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you
put
> : > 64MB into a 486?
> : >
> : > I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
DX-66.
> : Do
> : > post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> : whether
> : > you achieve this.
> : >
> : > --
> : > Cassandra
> : > Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People
> Too!'
> : >
> : > Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults,
bequests
> : > of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
> : > uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> : > Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post
> all
> : > correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
> : ---
> : Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> : Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> : Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/6/2003
> :
> :
> :
> : .....Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
> :
> : For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to
> give
> : me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
> : will know if my advice helped them or not.
> :
> : Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
> : www.computerboom.net
> :
> :
> :
>
>
Look I am not claiming that it will be a pleasent desktop adventure using XP
on a 486. But It can be installed and it can be done. So the challange has
been won.
This all started when someone wanted to find out if he could find a power
supply for a 486.
Cassandra scolded him. But I said that we CAN accept that question in this
newsgroup because in one way or the other you can have XP on a 486 desktop.
Thus that machine will need the power for having XP on its screen.
And I further explained that you can have the desktop on a far less
powerfull system.
So the question here is not one of practical use... but I am trying actually
to make the so called "NET COPS" and other people who are continuisly
negative...who keep complaining about things being out of subject that
things may be more realavent than they think. And that they should not just
shoo away people asking simple questions. One reason for this
is simple.... the people who are asking the simplest questions and come here
are the ones who will find it difficult to go to another newsgroup.
You can read all my posts about XP on a slow machine in this newsgroup on
day 18 of this month.
Here is one that discribes what you said about servers.... se we think
alike:
.................................................. .
Now,
I have installed XP on a Pentium 90 with 64 mb ram. Why did I do this? I
will tell you why....
Windows 2000 workstation could be installed on a Pentium 133 with 64 mb ram.
The fastest 486, if you recall was 120 MHZ, that was as fast as a Pentium 75
(the first pentiums).
Xp is actually based on windows 2000, having the kernel 5.1, windows 2000
had 5.0.
I wanted to test the LOWER limits of XP... and saw that I could have gone
even lower!
So.... If I could install XP on a Pentium 90, I sure could have done it on a
Pentium 75, that is equivalent to the 486 @120 MHz.
Of course it will need tweaking.... removing all the extra eye candy, having
a fast disk too would help.
But you may say THAT computer will not be usable, it will be too slow.
You are WRONG. Computers can be used for many reasons not only for desktop
use. A computer can be plugged in to a printer and have only that function.
Or can be connected to the internet with a 56 modem and share that
connection via a LAN card.
Thus you CAN have XP on a 486 (I am talking about the last generation of
this series), and IT CAN have a use.
By why should you make all that effort? I ask you this: why do overclockers
go like crazy when they get some more speed out of there CPU? It stupid,
because in 6 months there will be a chip that works that fast normally
without overclocking. But they are doing it because IT CAN BE DONE.
Therefore AGW's original post can stand in this newsgroup and Cassandra is
just being her usual grumpy self.
But this is a newsgroup for HELPING not grumping. Every post I see from her
is like that.....
Bruce I know you are an MVP, but you must not forget that once upon a time a
486 was a mighty machine ;-)
Bruce, I have invited Kelly to participate in a new site I am making... I
would be honored if you could post some things there from time to time,
perhaps include some content in a newsletter? The Url will be
www.computerboom.net .
I would like to have some MVPs aboard, kinda make it a friendly meeting
place for the masters of XP and a place where people can find useful info.
What do you say?
Kenny
"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings --
>
> Actually, Packard Bell once made a 486DX2 66 MHz machine that had
> 6 SIMM slots. And 72-pin SIMMs were available in sizes up to at least
> 32 Mb, that I recall using. ;-} The older, 30-pin SIMMs weren't
> available in such "large" sizes, though.
>
> But, overall, you're right. Trying to put WinXP onto a 486 would
> be an exercise in futility.
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> ----
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
>
> "Amethyst" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A 486 took SIMMs which had to be installed in pairs. They didn't,
> IIRC, come
> > in sizes any bigger than 8MB and the motherboard could only
> recognise about
> > 32MB (we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I
> also
> > never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my
> have been
> > some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you
> put
> > 64MB into a 486?
> >
> > I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
> DX-66. Do
> > post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> whether
> > you achieve this.
> >
> > --
> > Cassandra
> > Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People
> Too!'
> >
> > Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults,
> bequests
> > of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co
> (dot)
> > uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> > Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please
> post all
> > correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.
> >
> >
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.490 / Virus Database: 289 - Release Date: 16/6/2003
--
......Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to give
me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
will know if my advice helped them or not.
Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
www.computerboom.net
"G.Danes" > wrote in message
...
> I'm confused a little. Talking two totally different issues in this post.
> One is correct, the other is the challenge as I understand it.
>
> Yes you can run TS client on most anything. TS can run as a client or
> simply in an Internet browser albeit not sure how far down the browser
> support goes, would think 5.x.
>
> PDA clients are old news (been in the works for sometime) and would assume
> same client or even spin-off will eventually work with mobile/cell phones
> that take pictures and all. Still not the point of this discussion.
>
> If your taking his/her challenge to install XP on a 486 and having it work
> correctly were it's functional beyond being an XP logo picture on a
screen,
> NOT a remote session of XP but installed and fully functional, I think
> that's the challenge.
>
> Like you, I also have 25 years and I believe as you do in getting the most
> out of old equipment. Can easily make them print servers, fax server or
> anything else since quote "Server" as you and I both know is not about the
> machine as it is the application. Some tend to think when they hear
Server,
> it means some high end hardware where it's the application that makes it a
> server. Many uses for older equipment and if nothing else, YOU made
others
> aware of uses for those old machines.
>
> Getting XP to run properly on 486 or older system is crazy. Can it be
done,
> sure. ALL RULES GET BROKEN but some are more insane than others and not
> worth the effort. People using 95 (dates the hardware) struggle with
> getting XP to run properly. They have to track down drivers from
> manufacturers, do repair installs, get BSODs, IRQ Equal to errors etc..
> They go insane and most opt to go back to 95 or just upgrade to 98. I'm
not
> implying nobody was successful but it was a headache for them with 95
since
> the hardware is generally older than those using 98...
>
> Now we talk of 486's, remember more legacy issues down to chipsets. What
> PnP you had is outdated and not supported as well. Most manufacturers
will
> not go back and support something so outdated so attempting to get XP to
> install locally and function properly is a very real challenge. I doubt
you
> could do it without popping back in here under another assumed name asking
> for help. I may have missed something and I apologize if I did but I
think
> that's the challenge. Not running XP in a remote session.
>
> If you want to get down to it, you could probably in theory still run a
real
> dumb terminal with an Arcnet Boot prom, run WFW 3.x off a server, grab
> local internet connection off server and do remote session with an XP or
2k
> machine then view at dumb terminal via arcnet, but why? Maybe someday as
> you said, some programmer will right a small enough client that it may
even
> fit on to a bootprom, but again why? This still doesn't address the
> challenge just side-tracked with your conversion about
>
> Reason I'm confused is you spoke of remote sessions which made sense, (you
> can use older machines and OS to have a remote session of XP) but then you
> said
> "On these machines I can run XP. even if it means installing xp on
another
> machine so the installation will be faster and then placing the drive on
the
> 486".
>
> Not only will it fail when it polls for votes (examining your previous
> hardware), it's going to freak when it gets to those old chipsets not to
> mention other legacy or unsupported PnP devices from 199x... No sooner
than
> you think you have it working, BSOD. I think that's the challenge?
>
> The only clarification I see made from Cassandra's to your's is you don't
> need XP on both systems to do remote desktop. I'll add another, you can
> exceed 64 megs on a 486 and many boards had 4 slots for RAM. None of
this
> will change anything though... It still leaves the challenge. Can you
> install XP on 486, sure, will it work correctly, doub't it. You would
end
> up spending more time on this board looking for answers to get things to
> work as they should.
>
> Unrelated but just on another comment you made, I thought WFW was the last
> OS that recommended 4 megs RAM minimum. Thought 95 was 8, 98 was 16.
Most
> users would double that for performance. Maybe I'm mistaken, age does
that
> I guess.. ;c)
>
> JMT....
>
> GD
>
>
>
>
> "Knight" > wrote in message
> ...
> : I replied to your challenge... please read the post about running XP on
a
> : 486.
> : Not only that.... I state there that you can use XP on a far less
> powerfull
> : machine.
> : Cassandra not only cant you see the future... but is seems you have
> : forgotten the past.
> : There is no future without a past.
> :
> : Here is your grand challenge....
> :
> : >I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
DX-66.
> Do
> : >post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> : whether
> : >you achieve this.
> :
> : You forget that you can do much with very little if you know how to use
> : things in a smart way.
> :
> :
> : ______ reposting my reply to you for quick reference_________________
> :
> : Kenny said...
> :
> :
> : Unfortunately you are totally incorrect about everything. And I am
> sober...
> : and correct of course.
> : Keep reading and you will see that not only do I take up your challenge
> but
> : get away with FAR less computer power!
> : How much less.... you will see.... stay with me and be amazed :-)
> :
> : >Of course you'll have XP on your desktop - on the system you installed
it
> : on. You need XP installed on both systems for remote desktop to work -
> and,
> : as a 486 can only just run 95, you might want to rethink that statement.
> :
> : ------Totally wrong, an MVP will explain this to you. You can run a
> remote
> : desktop CLIENT on any 32 bit windows platform.
> :
> :
> : >we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I also
> : never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my have
> been
> : some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you put
> : 64MB into a 486?
> :
> : ----Wrong again... you COULD have 486 running @ 120 Mhz with 64 mb ram,
> This
> : is equivalent to a Pentium 75.
> :
> : As you can see from another poster...
> :
> : > > Actually, Packard Bell once made a 486DX2 66 MHz machine that
had
> : > > 6 SIMM slots. And 72-pin SIMMs were available in sizes up to at
least
> : > > 32 Mb, that I recall using. ;-}
> :
> :
> : -->I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
> DX-66.
> : Do
> : post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> whether
> : you achieve this.
> :
> : I never said the nature of the 486. I meant the fastest available 486 in
> the
> : market that was then @100 mhz, 120 Mhz and I think the last one was at a
> : whooping 133 mhz. On these machines I can run XP. even if it means
> : installing xp on another machine so the installation will be faster and
> then
> : placing the drive on the 486.
> :
> : Nevertheless you can run windows 95 and the remote desktop client on a
386
> : (because it is
> : 32 bit) and with 8 mb ram (this is what win95 needs to run). If you have
> : remote desktop you can log onto XP, windows2000, or even windows 2003
that
> : has very advanced terminal services.
> : You know what else you can do? You can run a remote client on a 386 with
> : windows 95 and 4 mb of ram, by having 8 mb during the installation of
> win95
> : and then REMOVING the other 4.
> : So this is the smallest limit for a computer that is running WINDOWS
> remote
> : desktop client. BUT noone says that you cannot create a remote desktop
for
> : older machines.
> : There are some programmers that have created such software for the
> AMIGA....
> : that computer has 500k and 4mhz (I think CPU).
> : You can probably go even lower..... I dare say a spectrum. Yes... there
> : might be a genius programmer out there that can create a client for
> windows
> : terminal servers that can fit into 48kb ram (the spectrum I think ran at
2
> : mhz, I still have one). Of course you will have color and resolution
> : limitations.... but you will still be able to control thus RUN xp from
> that
> : machine.
> :
> : Ok here is the point where you think I am crazy.....that I am talking
> about
> : 25 year old technology... and that all this is useless.
> :
> : DO you think that the creators of THIS:
> : http://www.thinsoftinc.com/products_winconnectz_info.html
> : were not thinking about everything I have said here?
> :
> : Yes let your eyes feast on this.... running XP on a PDA!!!
> :
> : Bruce are you with me???
> :
> : Bruce, I have invited Kelly (MVP) to participate in a new site I am
> : making... I
> : would be honored if you could post some things there from time to time,
> : perhaps include some content in a newsletter? The Url will be
> : www.computerboom.net .
> : I would like to have some MVPs aboard, kinda make it a friendly meeting
> : place for the masters of XP and a place where people can find useful
info.
> :
> : What do you say?
> :
> :
> : Kenny.... www.computerboom.net coming shortly stay tuned
> :
> : :-)
> :
> :
> : And my LAST comment is this....
> :
> :
> : .....Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
> :
> : For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to
> give
> : me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
> : will know if my advice helped them or not.
> :
> : Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
> : www.computerboom.net
> :
> :
> : "Amethyst" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > Knight wrote:
> : > > I dont like your attitude.
> : > > You can run a remote desktop connection from a 486, to an XP pro
> : computer.
> : > > Thus you will actually have XP on your desktop.
> : > >
> : > > A 486 CAN run XP if it has enough ram. It will work very slow but
that
> : is
> : > > not YOUR problem is it?
> : > >
> : > > If you cant give advice just dont say anything.
> : >
> : > You've been hitting the liquor mighty hard haven't you?! Do you
actually
> : > know what the blibbins you're blathering on about? Do you actually
know
> : what
> : > the minimum requirements for XP are? A 486 is barely capable of
running
> : 98,
> : > let alone XP!
> : >
> : > Of course you'll have XP on your desktop - on the system you installed
> it
> : > on. You need XP installed on both systems for remote desktop to work -
> : and,
> : > as a 486 can only just run 95, you might want to rethink that
statement.
> : >
> : > Now, those minimum specs: -
> : >
> : > a.. PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed
recommended;
> : 233
> : > MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel
> : > Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible
> : > processor recommended
> : > b.. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum
> : > supported; may limit performance and some features)
> : > c.. 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
> : > d.. Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and
> monitor
> : > e.. CD-ROM or DVD drive
> : > f.. Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
> : > I don't recall ever seeing a 486 a) with a 300MHz clock and b) called
a
> : > 'Pentium'.
> : >
> : > A 486 took SIMMs which had to be installed in pairs. They didn't,
IIRC,
> : come
> : > in sizes any bigger than 8MB and the motherboard could only recognise
> : about
> : > 32MB (we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I
> also
> : > never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my
have
> : been
> : > some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you
put
> : > 64MB into a 486?
> : >
> : > I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
DX-66.
> : Do
> : > post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> : whether
> : > you achieve this.
> : >
> : > --
> : > Cassandra
> : > Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People
> Too!'
> : >
> : > Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults,
bequests
> : > of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
> : > uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> : > Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post
> all
> : > correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
> : ---
> : Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> : Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> : Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/6/2003
> :
> :
> :
> : .....Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
> :
> : For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to
> give
> : me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
> : will know if my advice helped them or not.
> :
> : Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
> : www.computerboom.net
> :
> :
> :
>
>
on a 486. But It can be installed and it can be done. So the challange has
been won.
This all started when someone wanted to find out if he could find a power
supply for a 486.
Cassandra scolded him. But I said that we CAN accept that question in this
newsgroup because in one way or the other you can have XP on a 486 desktop.
Thus that machine will need the power for having XP on its screen.
And I further explained that you can have the desktop on a far less
powerfull system.
So the question here is not one of practical use... but I am trying actually
to make the so called "NET COPS" and other people who are continuisly
negative...who keep complaining about things being out of subject that
things may be more realavent than they think. And that they should not just
shoo away people asking simple questions. One reason for this
is simple.... the people who are asking the simplest questions and come here
are the ones who will find it difficult to go to another newsgroup.
You can read all my posts about XP on a slow machine in this newsgroup on
day 18 of this month.
Here is one that discribes what you said about servers.... se we think
alike:
.................................................. .
Now,
I have installed XP on a Pentium 90 with 64 mb ram. Why did I do this? I
will tell you why....
Windows 2000 workstation could be installed on a Pentium 133 with 64 mb ram.
The fastest 486, if you recall was 120 MHZ, that was as fast as a Pentium 75
(the first pentiums).
Xp is actually based on windows 2000, having the kernel 5.1, windows 2000
had 5.0.
I wanted to test the LOWER limits of XP... and saw that I could have gone
even lower!
So.... If I could install XP on a Pentium 90, I sure could have done it on a
Pentium 75, that is equivalent to the 486 @120 MHz.
Of course it will need tweaking.... removing all the extra eye candy, having
a fast disk too would help.
But you may say THAT computer will not be usable, it will be too slow.
You are WRONG. Computers can be used for many reasons not only for desktop
use. A computer can be plugged in to a printer and have only that function.
Or can be connected to the internet with a 56 modem and share that
connection via a LAN card.
Thus you CAN have XP on a 486 (I am talking about the last generation of
this series), and IT CAN have a use.
By why should you make all that effort? I ask you this: why do overclockers
go like crazy when they get some more speed out of there CPU? It stupid,
because in 6 months there will be a chip that works that fast normally
without overclocking. But they are doing it because IT CAN BE DONE.
Therefore AGW's original post can stand in this newsgroup and Cassandra is
just being her usual grumpy self.
But this is a newsgroup for HELPING not grumping. Every post I see from her
is like that.....
Bruce I know you are an MVP, but you must not forget that once upon a time a
486 was a mighty machine ;-)
Bruce, I have invited Kelly to participate in a new site I am making... I
would be honored if you could post some things there from time to time,
perhaps include some content in a newsletter? The Url will be
www.computerboom.net .
I would like to have some MVPs aboard, kinda make it a friendly meeting
place for the masters of XP and a place where people can find useful info.
What do you say?
Kenny
"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings --
>
> Actually, Packard Bell once made a 486DX2 66 MHz machine that had
> 6 SIMM slots. And 72-pin SIMMs were available in sizes up to at least
> 32 Mb, that I recall using. ;-} The older, 30-pin SIMMs weren't
> available in such "large" sizes, though.
>
> But, overall, you're right. Trying to put WinXP onto a 486 would
> be an exercise in futility.
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> ----
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
>
> "Amethyst" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A 486 took SIMMs which had to be installed in pairs. They didn't,
> IIRC, come
> > in sizes any bigger than 8MB and the motherboard could only
> recognise about
> > 32MB (we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I
> also
> > never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my
> have been
> > some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you
> put
> > 64MB into a 486?
> >
> > I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
> DX-66. Do
> > post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> whether
> > you achieve this.
> >
> > --
> > Cassandra
> > Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People
> Too!'
> >
> > Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults,
> bequests
> > of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co
> (dot)
> > uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> > Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please
> post all
> > correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.
> >
> >
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.490 / Virus Database: 289 - Release Date: 16/6/2003
--
......Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to give
me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
will know if my advice helped them or not.
Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
www.computerboom.net
"G.Danes" > wrote in message
...
> I'm confused a little. Talking two totally different issues in this post.
> One is correct, the other is the challenge as I understand it.
>
> Yes you can run TS client on most anything. TS can run as a client or
> simply in an Internet browser albeit not sure how far down the browser
> support goes, would think 5.x.
>
> PDA clients are old news (been in the works for sometime) and would assume
> same client or even spin-off will eventually work with mobile/cell phones
> that take pictures and all. Still not the point of this discussion.
>
> If your taking his/her challenge to install XP on a 486 and having it work
> correctly were it's functional beyond being an XP logo picture on a
screen,
> NOT a remote session of XP but installed and fully functional, I think
> that's the challenge.
>
> Like you, I also have 25 years and I believe as you do in getting the most
> out of old equipment. Can easily make them print servers, fax server or
> anything else since quote "Server" as you and I both know is not about the
> machine as it is the application. Some tend to think when they hear
Server,
> it means some high end hardware where it's the application that makes it a
> server. Many uses for older equipment and if nothing else, YOU made
others
> aware of uses for those old machines.
>
> Getting XP to run properly on 486 or older system is crazy. Can it be
done,
> sure. ALL RULES GET BROKEN but some are more insane than others and not
> worth the effort. People using 95 (dates the hardware) struggle with
> getting XP to run properly. They have to track down drivers from
> manufacturers, do repair installs, get BSODs, IRQ Equal to errors etc..
> They go insane and most opt to go back to 95 or just upgrade to 98. I'm
not
> implying nobody was successful but it was a headache for them with 95
since
> the hardware is generally older than those using 98...
>
> Now we talk of 486's, remember more legacy issues down to chipsets. What
> PnP you had is outdated and not supported as well. Most manufacturers
will
> not go back and support something so outdated so attempting to get XP to
> install locally and function properly is a very real challenge. I doubt
you
> could do it without popping back in here under another assumed name asking
> for help. I may have missed something and I apologize if I did but I
think
> that's the challenge. Not running XP in a remote session.
>
> If you want to get down to it, you could probably in theory still run a
real
> dumb terminal with an Arcnet Boot prom, run WFW 3.x off a server, grab
> local internet connection off server and do remote session with an XP or
2k
> machine then view at dumb terminal via arcnet, but why? Maybe someday as
> you said, some programmer will right a small enough client that it may
even
> fit on to a bootprom, but again why? This still doesn't address the
> challenge just side-tracked with your conversion about
>
> Reason I'm confused is you spoke of remote sessions which made sense, (you
> can use older machines and OS to have a remote session of XP) but then you
> said
> "On these machines I can run XP. even if it means installing xp on
another
> machine so the installation will be faster and then placing the drive on
the
> 486".
>
> Not only will it fail when it polls for votes (examining your previous
> hardware), it's going to freak when it gets to those old chipsets not to
> mention other legacy or unsupported PnP devices from 199x... No sooner
than
> you think you have it working, BSOD. I think that's the challenge?
>
> The only clarification I see made from Cassandra's to your's is you don't
> need XP on both systems to do remote desktop. I'll add another, you can
> exceed 64 megs on a 486 and many boards had 4 slots for RAM. None of
this
> will change anything though... It still leaves the challenge. Can you
> install XP on 486, sure, will it work correctly, doub't it. You would
end
> up spending more time on this board looking for answers to get things to
> work as they should.
>
> Unrelated but just on another comment you made, I thought WFW was the last
> OS that recommended 4 megs RAM minimum. Thought 95 was 8, 98 was 16.
Most
> users would double that for performance. Maybe I'm mistaken, age does
that
> I guess.. ;c)
>
> JMT....
>
> GD
>
>
>
>
> "Knight" > wrote in message
> ...
> : I replied to your challenge... please read the post about running XP on
a
> : 486.
> : Not only that.... I state there that you can use XP on a far less
> powerfull
> : machine.
> : Cassandra not only cant you see the future... but is seems you have
> : forgotten the past.
> : There is no future without a past.
> :
> : Here is your grand challenge....
> :
> : >I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
DX-66.
> Do
> : >post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> : whether
> : >you achieve this.
> :
> : You forget that you can do much with very little if you know how to use
> : things in a smart way.
> :
> :
> : ______ reposting my reply to you for quick reference_________________
> :
> : Kenny said...
> :
> :
> : Unfortunately you are totally incorrect about everything. And I am
> sober...
> : and correct of course.
> : Keep reading and you will see that not only do I take up your challenge
> but
> : get away with FAR less computer power!
> : How much less.... you will see.... stay with me and be amazed :-)
> :
> : >Of course you'll have XP on your desktop - on the system you installed
it
> : on. You need XP installed on both systems for remote desktop to work -
> and,
> : as a 486 can only just run 95, you might want to rethink that statement.
> :
> : ------Totally wrong, an MVP will explain this to you. You can run a
> remote
> : desktop CLIENT on any 32 bit windows platform.
> :
> :
> : >we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I also
> : never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my have
> been
> : some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you put
> : 64MB into a 486?
> :
> : ----Wrong again... you COULD have 486 running @ 120 Mhz with 64 mb ram,
> This
> : is equivalent to a Pentium 75.
> :
> : As you can see from another poster...
> :
> : > > Actually, Packard Bell once made a 486DX2 66 MHz machine that
had
> : > > 6 SIMM slots. And 72-pin SIMMs were available in sizes up to at
least
> : > > 32 Mb, that I recall using. ;-}
> :
> :
> : -->I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
> DX-66.
> : Do
> : post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> whether
> : you achieve this.
> :
> : I never said the nature of the 486. I meant the fastest available 486 in
> the
> : market that was then @100 mhz, 120 Mhz and I think the last one was at a
> : whooping 133 mhz. On these machines I can run XP. even if it means
> : installing xp on another machine so the installation will be faster and
> then
> : placing the drive on the 486.
> :
> : Nevertheless you can run windows 95 and the remote desktop client on a
386
> : (because it is
> : 32 bit) and with 8 mb ram (this is what win95 needs to run). If you have
> : remote desktop you can log onto XP, windows2000, or even windows 2003
that
> : has very advanced terminal services.
> : You know what else you can do? You can run a remote client on a 386 with
> : windows 95 and 4 mb of ram, by having 8 mb during the installation of
> win95
> : and then REMOVING the other 4.
> : So this is the smallest limit for a computer that is running WINDOWS
> remote
> : desktop client. BUT noone says that you cannot create a remote desktop
for
> : older machines.
> : There are some programmers that have created such software for the
> AMIGA....
> : that computer has 500k and 4mhz (I think CPU).
> : You can probably go even lower..... I dare say a spectrum. Yes... there
> : might be a genius programmer out there that can create a client for
> windows
> : terminal servers that can fit into 48kb ram (the spectrum I think ran at
2
> : mhz, I still have one). Of course you will have color and resolution
> : limitations.... but you will still be able to control thus RUN xp from
> that
> : machine.
> :
> : Ok here is the point where you think I am crazy.....that I am talking
> about
> : 25 year old technology... and that all this is useless.
> :
> : DO you think that the creators of THIS:
> : http://www.thinsoftinc.com/products_winconnectz_info.html
> : were not thinking about everything I have said here?
> :
> : Yes let your eyes feast on this.... running XP on a PDA!!!
> :
> : Bruce are you with me???
> :
> : Bruce, I have invited Kelly (MVP) to participate in a new site I am
> : making... I
> : would be honored if you could post some things there from time to time,
> : perhaps include some content in a newsletter? The Url will be
> : www.computerboom.net .
> : I would like to have some MVPs aboard, kinda make it a friendly meeting
> : place for the masters of XP and a place where people can find useful
info.
> :
> : What do you say?
> :
> :
> : Kenny.... www.computerboom.net coming shortly stay tuned
> :
> : :-)
> :
> :
> : And my LAST comment is this....
> :
> :
> : .....Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
> :
> : For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to
> give
> : me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
> : will know if my advice helped them or not.
> :
> : Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
> : www.computerboom.net
> :
> :
> : "Amethyst" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > Knight wrote:
> : > > I dont like your attitude.
> : > > You can run a remote desktop connection from a 486, to an XP pro
> : computer.
> : > > Thus you will actually have XP on your desktop.
> : > >
> : > > A 486 CAN run XP if it has enough ram. It will work very slow but
that
> : is
> : > > not YOUR problem is it?
> : > >
> : > > If you cant give advice just dont say anything.
> : >
> : > You've been hitting the liquor mighty hard haven't you?! Do you
actually
> : > know what the blibbins you're blathering on about? Do you actually
know
> : what
> : > the minimum requirements for XP are? A 486 is barely capable of
running
> : 98,
> : > let alone XP!
> : >
> : > Of course you'll have XP on your desktop - on the system you installed
> it
> : > on. You need XP installed on both systems for remote desktop to work -
> : and,
> : > as a 486 can only just run 95, you might want to rethink that
statement.
> : >
> : > Now, those minimum specs: -
> : >
> : > a.. PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed
recommended;
> : 233
> : > MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel
> : > Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible
> : > processor recommended
> : > b.. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum
> : > supported; may limit performance and some features)
> : > c.. 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
> : > d.. Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and
> monitor
> : > e.. CD-ROM or DVD drive
> : > f.. Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
> : > I don't recall ever seeing a 486 a) with a 300MHz clock and b) called
a
> : > 'Pentium'.
> : >
> : > A 486 took SIMMs which had to be installed in pairs. They didn't,
IIRC,
> : come
> : > in sizes any bigger than 8MB and the motherboard could only recognise
> : about
> : > 32MB (we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I
> also
> : > never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my
have
> : been
> : > some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you
put
> : > 64MB into a 486?
> : >
> : > I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
DX-66.
> : Do
> : > post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> : whether
> : > you achieve this.
> : >
> : > --
> : > Cassandra
> : > Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People
> Too!'
> : >
> : > Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults,
bequests
> : > of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
> : > uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> : > Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post
> all
> : > correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
> : ---
> : Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> : Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> : Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/6/2003
> :
> :
> :
> : .....Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
> :
> : For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to
> give
> : me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
> : will know if my advice helped them or not.
> :
> : Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
> : www.computerboom.net
> :
> :
> :
>
>
Look I am not claiming that it will be a pleasent desktop adventure using XP
on a 486. But It can be installed and it can be done. So the challange has
been won.
This all started when someone wanted to find out if he could find a power
supply for a 486.
Cassandra scolded him. But I said that we CAN accept that question in this
newsgroup because in one way or the other you can have XP on a 486 desktop.
Thus that machine will need the power for having XP on its screen.
And I further explained that you can have the desktop on a far less
powerfull system.
So the question here is not one of practical use... but I am trying actually
to make the so called "NET COPS" and other people who are continuisly
negative...who keep complaining about things being out of subject that
things may be more realavent than they think. And that they should not just
shoo away people asking simple questions. One reason for this
is simple.... the people who are asking the simplest questions and come here
are the ones who will find it difficult to go to another newsgroup.
You can read all my posts about XP on a slow machine in this newsgroup on
day 18 of this month.
Here is one that discribes what you said about servers.... se we think
alike:
.................................................. .
Now,
I have installed XP on a Pentium 90 with 64 mb ram. Why did I do this? I
will tell you why....
Windows 2000 workstation could be installed on a Pentium 133 with 64 mb ram.
The fastest 486, if you recall was 120 MHZ, that was as fast as a Pentium 75
(the first pentiums).
Xp is actually based on windows 2000, having the kernel 5.1, windows 2000
had 5.0.
I wanted to test the LOWER limits of XP... and saw that I could have gone
even lower!
So.... If I could install XP on a Pentium 90, I sure could have done it on a
Pentium 75, that is equivalent to the 486 @120 MHz.
Of course it will need tweaking.... removing all the extra eye candy, having
a fast disk too would help.
But you may say THAT computer will not be usable, it will be too slow.
You are WRONG. Computers can be used for many reasons not only for desktop
use. A computer can be plugged in to a printer and have only that function.
Or can be connected to the internet with a 56 modem and share that
connection via a LAN card.
Thus you CAN have XP on a 486 (I am talking about the last generation of
this series), and IT CAN have a use.
By why should you make all that effort? I ask you this: why do overclockers
go like crazy when they get some more speed out of there CPU? It stupid,
because in 6 months there will be a chip that works that fast normally
without overclocking. But they are doing it because IT CAN BE DONE.
Therefore AGW's original post can stand in this newsgroup and Cassandra is
just being her usual grumpy self.
But this is a newsgroup for HELPING not grumping. Every post I see from her
is like that.....
Bruce I know you are an MVP, but you must not forget that once upon a time a
486 was a mighty machine ;-)
Bruce, I have invited Kelly to participate in a new site I am making... I
would be honored if you could post some things there from time to time,
perhaps include some content in a newsletter? The Url will be
www.computerboom.net .
I would like to have some MVPs aboard, kinda make it a friendly meeting
place for the masters of XP and a place where people can find useful info.
What do you say?
Kenny
"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings --
>
> Actually, Packard Bell once made a 486DX2 66 MHz machine that had
> 6 SIMM slots. And 72-pin SIMMs were available in sizes up to at least
> 32 Mb, that I recall using. ;-} The older, 30-pin SIMMs weren't
> available in such "large" sizes, though.
>
> But, overall, you're right. Trying to put WinXP onto a 486 would
> be an exercise in futility.
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> ----
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
>
> "Amethyst" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A 486 took SIMMs which had to be installed in pairs. They didn't,
> IIRC, come
> > in sizes any bigger than 8MB and the motherboard could only
> recognise about
> > 32MB (we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I
> also
> > never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my
> have been
> > some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you
> put
> > 64MB into a 486?
> >
> > I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
> DX-66. Do
> > post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> whether
> > you achieve this.
> >
> > --
> > Cassandra
> > Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People
> Too!'
> >
> > Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults,
> bequests
> > of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co
> (dot)
> > uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> > Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please
> post all
> > correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.
> >
> >
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.490 / Virus Database: 289 - Release Date: 16/6/2003
--
......Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to give
me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
will know if my advice helped them or not.
Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
www.computerboom.net
"G.Danes" > wrote in message
...
> I'm confused a little. Talking two totally different issues in this post.
> One is correct, the other is the challenge as I understand it.
>
> Yes you can run TS client on most anything. TS can run as a client or
> simply in an Internet browser albeit not sure how far down the browser
> support goes, would think 5.x.
>
> PDA clients are old news (been in the works for sometime) and would assume
> same client or even spin-off will eventually work with mobile/cell phones
> that take pictures and all. Still not the point of this discussion.
>
> If your taking his/her challenge to install XP on a 486 and having it work
> correctly were it's functional beyond being an XP logo picture on a
screen,
> NOT a remote session of XP but installed and fully functional, I think
> that's the challenge.
>
> Like you, I also have 25 years and I believe as you do in getting the most
> out of old equipment. Can easily make them print servers, fax server or
> anything else since quote "Server" as you and I both know is not about the
> machine as it is the application. Some tend to think when they hear
Server,
> it means some high end hardware where it's the application that makes it a
> server. Many uses for older equipment and if nothing else, YOU made
others
> aware of uses for those old machines.
>
> Getting XP to run properly on 486 or older system is crazy. Can it be
done,
> sure. ALL RULES GET BROKEN but some are more insane than others and not
> worth the effort. People using 95 (dates the hardware) struggle with
> getting XP to run properly. They have to track down drivers from
> manufacturers, do repair installs, get BSODs, IRQ Equal to errors etc..
> They go insane and most opt to go back to 95 or just upgrade to 98. I'm
not
> implying nobody was successful but it was a headache for them with 95
since
> the hardware is generally older than those using 98...
>
> Now we talk of 486's, remember more legacy issues down to chipsets. What
> PnP you had is outdated and not supported as well. Most manufacturers
will
> not go back and support something so outdated so attempting to get XP to
> install locally and function properly is a very real challenge. I doubt
you
> could do it without popping back in here under another assumed name asking
> for help. I may have missed something and I apologize if I did but I
think
> that's the challenge. Not running XP in a remote session.
>
> If you want to get down to it, you could probably in theory still run a
real
> dumb terminal with an Arcnet Boot prom, run WFW 3.x off a server, grab
> local internet connection off server and do remote session with an XP or
2k
> machine then view at dumb terminal via arcnet, but why? Maybe someday as
> you said, some programmer will right a small enough client that it may
even
> fit on to a bootprom, but again why? This still doesn't address the
> challenge just side-tracked with your conversion about
>
> Reason I'm confused is you spoke of remote sessions which made sense, (you
> can use older machines and OS to have a remote session of XP) but then you
> said
> "On these machines I can run XP. even if it means installing xp on
another
> machine so the installation will be faster and then placing the drive on
the
> 486".
>
> Not only will it fail when it polls for votes (examining your previous
> hardware), it's going to freak when it gets to those old chipsets not to
> mention other legacy or unsupported PnP devices from 199x... No sooner
than
> you think you have it working, BSOD. I think that's the challenge?
>
> The only clarification I see made from Cassandra's to your's is you don't
> need XP on both systems to do remote desktop. I'll add another, you can
> exceed 64 megs on a 486 and many boards had 4 slots for RAM. None of
this
> will change anything though... It still leaves the challenge. Can you
> install XP on 486, sure, will it work correctly, doub't it. You would
end
> up spending more time on this board looking for answers to get things to
> work as they should.
>
> Unrelated but just on another comment you made, I thought WFW was the last
> OS that recommended 4 megs RAM minimum. Thought 95 was 8, 98 was 16.
Most
> users would double that for performance. Maybe I'm mistaken, age does
that
> I guess.. ;c)
>
> JMT....
>
> GD
>
>
>
>
> "Knight" > wrote in message
> ...
> : I replied to your challenge... please read the post about running XP on
a
> : 486.
> : Not only that.... I state there that you can use XP on a far less
> powerfull
> : machine.
> : Cassandra not only cant you see the future... but is seems you have
> : forgotten the past.
> : There is no future without a past.
> :
> : Here is your grand challenge....
> :
> : >I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
DX-66.
> Do
> : >post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> : whether
> : >you achieve this.
> :
> : You forget that you can do much with very little if you know how to use
> : things in a smart way.
> :
> :
> : ______ reposting my reply to you for quick reference_________________
> :
> : Kenny said...
> :
> :
> : Unfortunately you are totally incorrect about everything. And I am
> sober...
> : and correct of course.
> : Keep reading and you will see that not only do I take up your challenge
> but
> : get away with FAR less computer power!
> : How much less.... you will see.... stay with me and be amazed :-)
> :
> : >Of course you'll have XP on your desktop - on the system you installed
it
> : on. You need XP installed on both systems for remote desktop to work -
> and,
> : as a 486 can only just run 95, you might want to rethink that statement.
> :
> : ------Totally wrong, an MVP will explain this to you. You can run a
> remote
> : desktop CLIENT on any 32 bit windows platform.
> :
> :
> : >we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I also
> : never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my have
> been
> : some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you put
> : 64MB into a 486?
> :
> : ----Wrong again... you COULD have 486 running @ 120 Mhz with 64 mb ram,
> This
> : is equivalent to a Pentium 75.
> :
> : As you can see from another poster...
> :
> : > > Actually, Packard Bell once made a 486DX2 66 MHz machine that
had
> : > > 6 SIMM slots. And 72-pin SIMMs were available in sizes up to at
least
> : > > 32 Mb, that I recall using. ;-}
> :
> :
> : -->I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
> DX-66.
> : Do
> : post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> whether
> : you achieve this.
> :
> : I never said the nature of the 486. I meant the fastest available 486 in
> the
> : market that was then @100 mhz, 120 Mhz and I think the last one was at a
> : whooping 133 mhz. On these machines I can run XP. even if it means
> : installing xp on another machine so the installation will be faster and
> then
> : placing the drive on the 486.
> :
> : Nevertheless you can run windows 95 and the remote desktop client on a
386
> : (because it is
> : 32 bit) and with 8 mb ram (this is what win95 needs to run). If you have
> : remote desktop you can log onto XP, windows2000, or even windows 2003
that
> : has very advanced terminal services.
> : You know what else you can do? You can run a remote client on a 386 with
> : windows 95 and 4 mb of ram, by having 8 mb during the installation of
> win95
> : and then REMOVING the other 4.
> : So this is the smallest limit for a computer that is running WINDOWS
> remote
> : desktop client. BUT noone says that you cannot create a remote desktop
for
> : older machines.
> : There are some programmers that have created such software for the
> AMIGA....
> : that computer has 500k and 4mhz (I think CPU).
> : You can probably go even lower..... I dare say a spectrum. Yes... there
> : might be a genius programmer out there that can create a client for
> windows
> : terminal servers that can fit into 48kb ram (the spectrum I think ran at
2
> : mhz, I still have one). Of course you will have color and resolution
> : limitations.... but you will still be able to control thus RUN xp from
> that
> : machine.
> :
> : Ok here is the point where you think I am crazy.....that I am talking
> about
> : 25 year old technology... and that all this is useless.
> :
> : DO you think that the creators of THIS:
> : http://www.thinsoftinc.com/products_winconnectz_info.html
> : were not thinking about everything I have said here?
> :
> : Yes let your eyes feast on this.... running XP on a PDA!!!
> :
> : Bruce are you with me???
> :
> : Bruce, I have invited Kelly (MVP) to participate in a new site I am
> : making... I
> : would be honored if you could post some things there from time to time,
> : perhaps include some content in a newsletter? The Url will be
> : www.computerboom.net .
> : I would like to have some MVPs aboard, kinda make it a friendly meeting
> : place for the masters of XP and a place where people can find useful
info.
> :
> : What do you say?
> :
> :
> : Kenny.... www.computerboom.net coming shortly stay tuned
> :
> : :-)
> :
> :
> : And my LAST comment is this....
> :
> :
> : .....Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
> :
> : For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to
> give
> : me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
> : will know if my advice helped them or not.
> :
> : Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
> : www.computerboom.net
> :
> :
> : "Amethyst" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > Knight wrote:
> : > > I dont like your attitude.
> : > > You can run a remote desktop connection from a 486, to an XP pro
> : computer.
> : > > Thus you will actually have XP on your desktop.
> : > >
> : > > A 486 CAN run XP if it has enough ram. It will work very slow but
that
> : is
> : > > not YOUR problem is it?
> : > >
> : > > If you cant give advice just dont say anything.
> : >
> : > You've been hitting the liquor mighty hard haven't you?! Do you
actually
> : > know what the blibbins you're blathering on about? Do you actually
know
> : what
> : > the minimum requirements for XP are? A 486 is barely capable of
running
> : 98,
> : > let alone XP!
> : >
> : > Of course you'll have XP on your desktop - on the system you installed
> it
> : > on. You need XP installed on both systems for remote desktop to work -
> : and,
> : > as a 486 can only just run 95, you might want to rethink that
statement.
> : >
> : > Now, those minimum specs: -
> : >
> : > a.. PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed
recommended;
> : 233
> : > MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel
> : > Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible
> : > processor recommended
> : > b.. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum
> : > supported; may limit performance and some features)
> : > c.. 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
> : > d.. Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and
> monitor
> : > e.. CD-ROM or DVD drive
> : > f.. Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
> : > I don't recall ever seeing a 486 a) with a 300MHz clock and b) called
a
> : > 'Pentium'.
> : >
> : > A 486 took SIMMs which had to be installed in pairs. They didn't,
IIRC,
> : come
> : > in sizes any bigger than 8MB and the motherboard could only recognise
> : about
> : > 32MB (we're going back a while so my memory may be a little hazy). I
> also
> : > never saw a 486 motherboard with more than two RAM slots (there my
have
> : been
> : > some that had four, but I don't recall any). Now, do tell me how you
put
> : > 64MB into a 486?
> : >
> : > I challenge you to install XP on a 486 SX (no wait, I'll be kind)
DX-66.
> : Do
> : > post back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to hear
> : whether
> : > you achieve this.
> : >
> : > --
> : > Cassandra
> : > Card carrying member of the Fresh Start Club 'The Undead Are People
> Too!'
> : >
> : > Reply address is fake. Please send all praise, abuse, insults,
bequests
> : > of £1million to cassandra (at) craigy34 (dot) freeserve (dot) co (dot)
> : > uk. Change the obvious to the obvious.
> : > Private requests for assistance will not be acknowledged. Please post
> all
> : > correspondence to the group so that all may benefit. Thank you.
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
> : ---
> : Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> : Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> : Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/6/2003
> :
> :
> :
> : .....Creativity is intelligence having fun !.....;-)
> :
> : For the ones reading technical replies, I would kindly request them to
> give
> : me their feedback with another post (in the same thread of course), so I
> : will know if my advice helped them or not.
> :
> : Kenny S www.talentgrid.com
> : www.computerboom.net
> :
> :
> :
>
>