FireTime Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 After giving up on my hopes of installing DSL on my junk laptop (serious compatibility problems). I decided to install win 95 on this laptop (probability going to the least system intensive operating system that can still read PDF's) Back in the day I have done this many times but now I have completely forgot everything. After booting with a boot floppy i get in windows95 DOS from there I cd to the R: (idk why R) the cd-rom spins up and I run Setup.exe. After that completes it tells me to restart. Once it restarts it never boots. Just get a blinking cursor(not DOS) My guess is that it's not setting the MBR because I don't think win 95 used a boot.ini. Any Ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 After giving up on my hopes of installing DSL on my junk laptop (serious compatibility problems). I decided to install win 95 on this laptop (probability going to the least system intensive operating system that can still read PDF's) Back in the day I have done this many times but now I have completely forgot everything. After booting with a boot floppy i get in windows95 DOS from there I cd to the R: (idk why R) the cd-rom spins up and I run Setup.exe. After that completes it tells me to restart. Once it restarts it never boots. Just get a blinking cursor(not DOS) My guess is that it's not setting the MBR because I don't think win 95 used a boot.ini. Any Ideas? You really don't want to use Windows 95. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messsy Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 off topic but get ramdisk lol, i run it on my mini laptop, soz :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireTime Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 You really don't want to use Windows 95. http://inferno.slug.org/pdf/toshiba/tecra8000.pdf PAT800U-KB51 I had win 2000 on it before and that ran as smooth as sandpaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lopez1364 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Boo Windows 95. Yeah Windows 98. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireTime Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 Boo Windows 95. Yeah Windows 98. bah, I know 95 is bad but it's not the plague you make it out to be. I'm dealing with someseriously bad hardware. I'll try out 98 for a while and see if it fast enough. 128mb of PC66 ram Intel Mobile Pentium II @ 400MHz (1.6v) L1=32KB: (16KB code; 16KB data) L2=256KB No nic card (I have a pc card for wired/wireless) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xdmag Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Looks like a classic use for one of the light Linux distros out there. I bet it would be better than Win95, and more secure. And it can read PDFs too... Anyone wants to suggest a good distro for 128MB RAM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machstorm Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Yah, try an older version of linux if you can, because before long you will get the infamous "Out of memory" error that happens on all 95 machines due to the limits of FAT 16. Although, keep in mind I am glossing over a lot of information, but that is basically whats going to happen. Linux distros that come to mind (for 128MB RAM) RedHat 7 Damn Small Linux Mandrake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireTime Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 Yah, try an older version of linux if you can, because before long you will get the infamous "Out of memory" error that happens on all 95 machines due to the limits of FAT 16. Although, keep in mind I am glossing over a lot of information, but that is basically whats going to happen. Linux distros that come to mind (for 128MB RAM) RedHat 7 Damn Small Linux Mandrake Thanks for the info. RedHat installed fairly easy but getting video problems. Even with the correct resolution set it dosen't use the full screen, there is 1 inch of black on the right and 1/2 everywhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bit Hunter Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 ... Even with the correct resolution set it dosen't use the full screen, there is 1 inch of black on the right and 1/2 everywhere else. Try to change the refresh rate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonlit Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 bah, I know 95 is bad but it's not the plague you make it out to be. I'm dealing with someseriously bad hardware. I'll try out 98 for a while and see if it fast enough. 128mb of PC66 ram Intel Mobile Pentium II @ 400MHz (1.6v) L1=32KB: (16KB code; 16KB data) L2=256KB No nic card (I have a pc card for wired/wireless) I've run Windows 2000 on lesser systems than that without a problem. I've even run XP and Longhorn on lesser systems though I'll admit to them not being hugely useful. Windows 2000, though, should run just fine on that machine, and would be much more useful (read: compatible, stable, secure) than Windows 95. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beakmyn Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 What are talking about? I've got Windows XP, yes XP running on a 166Mhz with 48MB of RAM! It's a single purpose machine but it runs. Only uses 32MB of RAM. On a more usable note a nLite installation of Windows2000 runs great on my 100Mhz Digital Hinote with 80MB of RAM. I nlited it also removed unneeded services. If you're having problems with Damn Small Linux let me know the issues and I'll help you through it. In general first thing to try is. fb800x600 apci=off apm=off noacpi noddc nomce @xdmag For 128MB of RAM, try Xubuntu it uses a XFCE which a light way desktop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBP Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Maybe use a better interface? gnome and kde are crap bulky gui's. Try fluxbox. I'd say you could run an arch install with fluxbox on that machine like a charm ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bit Hunter Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Maybe use a better interface? gnome and kde are crap bulky gui's. Try fluxbox. I'd say you could run an arch install with fluxbox on that machine like a charm ;) I like openbox more, it is even lighter then flux/black... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atrocity Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 You can technically run Win98 with only 28MB of ram...but you need 32 to get it installed unless you use the switch to disable checking for 32MB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.