fwp at deepthought.com
Mon Apr 13 12:06:45 EDT 2009
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:17:21AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 13 April 2009, wdg3rd at comcast.net wrote:
> >----- "Bruce W. Calkins" <brucewcalkins at charter.net> wrote:
> >> From: "Bruce W. Calkins" <brucewcalkins at charter.net>
> >> To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 11:14:32 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> >> Subject: Re: [Coco] DriveWire
> >> > Just show me an example of somebody
> >> > (not a Microsoft employee or contractor)
> >> > installing a supported Microsoft OS on
> >> > bare metal in this millennium.
> >> Been there, done that. 98SE & XP Pro 64 bit.
> >> > I can do it with any of a dozen
> >> > Linux distros.
> >> In most cases LINUX is easier, but I have one unit that runs a "test"
> >> of XP
> >> Pro quite well, but chokes on LINUX.
> >Tell me the MOBO models. I can't think of one that will "test" XP and won't
> > run Linux. Does it "run" XP? And while 98SE isn't quite "this
> > millennium", I'd like some details as to what kind of bare metal you
> > inflicted that onto. As in a decade and a half, I haven't found a system
> > (386 & up) that wouldn't boot Linux if it booted Windows 3.11 or later.
> IIRC linux won't run on a 386-SX, or at least I couldn't get it to fly many
> years ago. W-95 ran on it ok. Glacial speeds though...
I never had a problem getting linux to run on my 386-sx at the time. Bringing
this conversation back to the modern era. I've had little trouble getting Linux
to run on modern hardware for years. While I haven't confirmed it first hand I've
heard rumors that Linux works with more hardware then vista.
I would also like to again suggest that people that tried linux and had problems with
hardware support more then 5 years ago try it now with a current release of say Ubuntu.
(not my favorite but it works well)
More information about the Coco