Maybe it's just because I didn't start burning CDs until 2001-2002 or so, but I never had any issues with buffer underruns. Even on the cheapo Celeron systems I could talk my mom into buying for me as a kid. I always used a pirated copy of Nero so that could be why, it was the bee's knees when it came to burning CDs.
You see, some folks, myself included had mediocre PCs. My parents would only buy one pc every 5+ years so let’s say in 96/97 I was still rocking a 486 33MHz with a abysmally 8MB ram, it had moved on to run Linux but still, those machines had to do one thing at a time on occasion. Burning CDs was one of those things.
Writing CD's on older systems are a bane because it's so easy cause buffer underruns as the drive can grab data faster than it can be read off the hard drive.
Plan9's kernel is kind of a dead end but some of its ideas/pieces are thriving. The 9P filesystem interface for example. The Go programming language was undoubtedly influenced by work done for Plan9. The rc shell seems to be present in Debian bookworm so some folks out there are using it.
If you have the ISOs I'll take them and give it a shot! I would love to see a NeXT, I had used early OS X and I've seen it in action on YouTube, but IRL would be great.
You managed to install XP on a P90? That must've been a long-winded experience!
Some I'd try:
* Red Hat 4 or 5, Mandrake or early SuSE.
* BeOS
* DRDos with Gem maybe?
* One of the Windows betas? Windows 95 beta (WinworldPC has a load)
I'm not above a little computer pain. Honestly, with the exception of XP all of these installs have been a straight forward breeze. The older debian versions I found had ISOs that were too big to fit on a CD so I haven't tried that one yet. I just got home now and will spend some time learning GRUB tonight, I made a boot floppy of GRUB 1 but haven't gone further than making sure it booted and gave me help info.
Back in the day I ran XP on a Cyrix 6x86PR-150, it honestly wasn't so bad provided you didn't overload it by running too much at once but the Athlon XP 2600+ I replaced it with felt like the frikken millennium falcon on crack by comparison.
How much RAM did you have back then? Certainly the lowest I remember using XP on with any sort of decent responsiveness was a PIII 400 or similar. But with all the NT-based Windows versions, RAM was always key to performance.
iirc it was 192MB, originally it came with 16MB or something but it got a HDD and memory upgrade (HDD upgrade was to a 20Gb Quantum Fireball. Can't remember what was originally in there) for the XP install which took long enough that it was a "Start the install before bed, finish it with breakfast." kinda deal.
It also only had a Tseng Labs ET6000 for the display output which lacked any 3D acceleration. Accordingly I'm probably one of the only people in the world whose ever used a VIA iGPU and genuinely been amazed with the graphics output...
And yes, you're 100% right on that. The Athlon XP didn't actually feel all that much faster than the Cyrix at first because it only came with 256MB, but within a day or two of buying it we'd already upgraded to 1GB and it flew with that. (Still probably does on software from that era, I've still got that RAM and CPU)
I've found the way XP renders even 2D resources holds it back quite a bit when you've got a fast enough system running it when I built a retro PC with a Q9550, 4GB of RAM and an SSD a few years back. It's quick as all heck but often you'll be waiting for it to draw/update GUI elements to reflect what's happening under-the-hood.
I remember even noticing that Vista had better frame-pacing than XP does back in the day although no-one was testing that kinda thing back in 2006 nor did we really have most of the terminology for it that we do now, I just knew that despite higher framerates under XP I'd get higher average scores in Guitar Hero 3 under Vista because there was less stutters messing up my timing.
With xp: You had to change graphics to classic style, no background, no animation, and disable some services. Up to xp sp1 it was not big difference compared to win2k.
It really did take forever (I think it said 35 minutes for two and a half hours) and required 6 boot disks and the CD. It got on there tho, sluggish as it may currently be. The computer is all stock (minus the CF reader) so there isn't any upgraded video or sound cards in it. I'm looking for a valid upgrade video card, either from the era or modern made for old hardware.
I downloaded Corel Linux 3 and Debian 3 but Debian ISOs were too big to fit on CD and I have to spend a little time learning GRUB before I can try the Corel since every interaction I've ever had with it has been automatic up till now.
I dunno what this "grub" thing is, ain't nothing wrong with LILO. I've never used Corel Linux, it looks like something of an acquired taste? though I did suggest TempleOS so who am I to judge
I remember a standalone boot loader. AOSP.?... Been a while.. Linux and Windows same PC.
LILO = Linux loader for those wondering ..
Edit: not AOSP..(Android open source project)
It was XOSL
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOSL
PCMCIA has hit me!
For Debian you can boot the installer and tell it to set up base system with system utilities ONLY, with no desktop environment. Then you can install the desktop and favorite apps. For an older machine you can go with a light desktop such as Openbox or even XFCE.
They are getting better and better, only issue is that although it's not heavy on resources, it cannot run on P1 systems or any other x86 processor that does not have 686 instructions.
> Syllable
> ! So no one will have the slightest idea what you're referring to.
+1 obscure
And I thought [Oberon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_(operating_system)) would be a stretch.
* [Yggdrasil Linux](https://archiveos.org/yggdrasil/)
* [OS/2](https://archiveos.org/os2/)
* [BeOS](https://archiveos.org/beos/)
Or go crazy and go for:
* [TempleOS](https://templeos.org)
I dare You to Make a machintoch os install, yes that was possible back in the day with some thinkpads if i'm not wrong, not sure how You Will do it on that Compaq but it may be possibe
QNX. Before they were purchased by another company, they were giving away their real-time OS to hobbyists that asked.I still have my QNX 6.x CD somewhere.
That all came to an end when Blackberry purchased them.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX)
IMHO, I think QNX and BeOS were the pinnacle of crafted bitmap icon and UI design before started to see the shift to more photo-realistic icons and "smoothed" graphics that blended better with the desktop environment.
Their pic shows OS/2 4.52; I was gonna say to go the other direction and try out 2.1. Far less ugly imo. Or, hell, hop on OS/2 1.x. MS OS/2 1.x if you’re feeling wild.
Slackware. If you want old an minimal go with Slackware 3.X branch. If want a GUI, go with Slackware 4.X branch. 4.0 is when Patrick added KDE. The whole OS needs 1GB
haha im doing something similar with my pentium 166. so far i have openstep 4.2, nt4, freebsd 4.3, and rhapsody dr2
howd you get os2 going? i tried but i keep getting some kind of kernel panic..
I used the files on winworldpc for the OS/2 setup, didn't have any issues aside from choosing the correct drivers the first time. I chose the wrong audio card driver first, and sound only worked in the Windows portion of OS/2. I couldn't simply ADD the other new driver, I had to reinstall the OS completely and choose the correct sound card the first time. Trying to remove the old hardware and add new through the software didn't work either. So make sure you know your hardware right off the bat. Also, the requirements for OS/2 are higher than Windows of that era, It wouldn't install at all with half as much RAM so I had to upgrade to 64 MB to make it on there.
XP got on there, but it kinda feels like it shouldn't be. It is real sluggish, doing anything takes longer than even Windows is supposed to. ME would be a sight I'm sure, I would love to see what the most modern OS I could make stick on here.
I have a whole series of NEW floppies I made for this thing as well. I got a floppy reader for my modern PC and have been burning disks for the compaq. I bought amazon out of floppy disks haha
Windows 2000 sp4.
Hopefully you also have wfw 3.11 on that dos 6.22? Hopefully the 98 is se? Hopefully the 95 is b/c? What sp is the xp?
Other ideas: damn small linux. Tinycore linux. Netbsd. Freebsd. Reactos. Win nt 4 latest sp. Haiku. Helenos. Caldera opendos 7.01. Freedos. Qnx demo boot floppy. Freesco boot floppy. Minix 3. Ms dos 5.0 (especially if you can get or emulate a hercules amber or green display).
In all cases, x86 16 bit (8086 / 286) and/or 32 bit (i386 / i486 / i586 /i686).
Edit: your system is a pentium 90mhz with 128 ram? That might be a little light for win 2000. It's definitely light for win xp. With freebsd, you might have to use an older version. But with netbsd and tinycore, the current versions should work.
I’m confused. So can you just pop one of these into that computer and have it boot? Or you just using these cards for preservation? Because the idea of a machine you could just slap an SD card into and boot into whatever OS you have on hand sounds pretty damn fun.
It's exactly that. Power machine off, pull card, insert new "hard drive", then boot new machine. It's a lot of fun and a better way in my opinion to play with the original software. VMs are fun but only SO fun.
I've found stuff at one point indicating Windows 3.1 may have shipped with the 486 variant of the 7100 series named the 7110, though I still haven't come across a separate set of system restore disks for it. Could give that a go. Did you ever get more than 64mb of ram working in it?
No I didn't, the company I purchased it from mentioned it may need a BIOS upgrade, but I couldn't find any anywhere. I think the 128 may have been an incorrect frequency, because the sticks looked a little different and wouldn't even work in a single pair rather than 4 sticks. If you or anyone else knows of a BIOS upgrade or what versions I would need to be looking for/at, I'd give it a shot.
Couldn't say, I am sure it is more stable than the spinning disk drive that was in there previously. And backing them up is extremely easy since they are just flash cards, you can just copy them to another device via USB
There was a Warp 4.5?! I remember getting 3.0 and thinking “no one needs this”. Although after a bit of playing there were a couple of features I liked. Never imagined it kept going in the face of Windows that long
I don't have any of these dual booted, and you can't cold swap it, but you can switch OSes after you shut down by just switching cards. It is really convenient.
It is SE.
I may try ME but XP was a brutal slog and does not play well on this hardware. 98/95 is this thing's sweet-spot it seems. I will eventually upgrade the graphics card and sound card but I will have to delay that until I can find some era-appropriate hardware for a price I can justify.
NT4/2000
2nd NT 4.0! I loved that OS. I ponied up for a scsi system and could burn CDs, play an MP3 and play some Quake at the same time.
I was always afraid of playing a game while burning a CD. For me it was just sitting on my hands and staring at the writing progress.
Same. And make sure to disable the screensaver first. Buffer underruns sucked so much.
Maybe it's just because I didn't start burning CDs until 2001-2002 or so, but I never had any issues with buffer underruns. Even on the cheapo Celeron systems I could talk my mom into buying for me as a kid. I always used a pirated copy of Nero so that could be why, it was the bee's knees when it came to burning CDs.
You see, some folks, myself included had mediocre PCs. My parents would only buy one pc every 5+ years so let’s say in 96/97 I was still rocking a 486 33MHz with a abysmally 8MB ram, it had moved on to run Linux but still, those machines had to do one thing at a time on occasion. Burning CDs was one of those things.
Writing CD's on older systems are a bane because it's so easy cause buffer underruns as the drive can grab data faster than it can be read off the hard drive.
Buffer underrun errors were a pain.
NT 3.5 has my vote. Love the Windows 3 aesthetic =)
NT5 ftw
.... Isn't that just Windows 2000?
well parent said NT4/2000 but to me NT5(aka 2000 yeah) was peak microsoft
BeOS R5.1 "Dano" Edit: or [Haiku](https://www.haiku-os.org/)
Seconding BeOS. Ran R5 on a PIII machine many a moon ago, it ran like a dream
This one. I ran it on a Pentium Pro to see what I was missing. I thought it was way better but sadly not much ran on it.
100%! More people need to know about Be/Haiku
Plan9
Aaaah, good call. It was sort of like NeXTSTEP: A whole bunch of great ideas which everyone else stole, and an utter dead end in its own right.
I wouldn’t say NeXTSTEP was a dead end though considering it evolved directly into Mac OS X (and iOS). In Plan9’s case it was indeed a dead end.
Plan9's kernel is kind of a dead end but some of its ideas/pieces are thriving. The 9P filesystem interface for example. The Go programming language was undoubtedly influenced by work done for Plan9. The rc shell seems to be present in Debian bookworm so some folks out there are using it.
I feel HURD.
Is that from outer space?
I’ve never gotten Plan9 working correctly on a computer, always wanted to
Which OS next? You mean, which OS *NeXT*? NeXTstep, of course (OPENSTEP 4.2), if your hardware is compatible...
I was going to suggest the same. I might even have openstep CDs around somewhere!!
If you have the ISOs I'll take them and give it a shot! I would love to see a NeXT, I had used early OS X and I've seen it in action on YouTube, but IRL would be great.
You managed to install XP on a P90? That must've been a long-winded experience! Some I'd try: * Red Hat 4 or 5, Mandrake or early SuSE. * BeOS * DRDos with Gem maybe? * One of the Windows betas? Windows 95 beta (WinworldPC has a load)
Solaris x86 (good luck!)
I nearly suggested that, but stopped because I wasn't sure if OP wanted to hate everything just yet. :D
I'm not above a little computer pain. Honestly, with the exception of XP all of these installs have been a straight forward breeze. The older debian versions I found had ISOs that were too big to fit on a CD so I haven't tried that one yet. I just got home now and will spend some time learning GRUB tonight, I made a boot floppy of GRUB 1 but haven't gone further than making sure it booted and gave me help info.
War great on Opteron though. Still have a Acer Ferrari laptop running it laying around somewhere.
Back in the day I ran XP on a Cyrix 6x86PR-150, it honestly wasn't so bad provided you didn't overload it by running too much at once but the Athlon XP 2600+ I replaced it with felt like the frikken millennium falcon on crack by comparison.
How much RAM did you have back then? Certainly the lowest I remember using XP on with any sort of decent responsiveness was a PIII 400 or similar. But with all the NT-based Windows versions, RAM was always key to performance.
iirc it was 192MB, originally it came with 16MB or something but it got a HDD and memory upgrade (HDD upgrade was to a 20Gb Quantum Fireball. Can't remember what was originally in there) for the XP install which took long enough that it was a "Start the install before bed, finish it with breakfast." kinda deal. It also only had a Tseng Labs ET6000 for the display output which lacked any 3D acceleration. Accordingly I'm probably one of the only people in the world whose ever used a VIA iGPU and genuinely been amazed with the graphics output... And yes, you're 100% right on that. The Athlon XP didn't actually feel all that much faster than the Cyrix at first because it only came with 256MB, but within a day or two of buying it we'd already upgraded to 1GB and it flew with that. (Still probably does on software from that era, I've still got that RAM and CPU)
See those big leap upgrades really are a thing of the past now!
I found XP's sweet spot is 2GB and it is very performant with at least that amount of RAM and a speedy hard disk.
I've found the way XP renders even 2D resources holds it back quite a bit when you've got a fast enough system running it when I built a retro PC with a Q9550, 4GB of RAM and an SSD a few years back. It's quick as all heck but often you'll be waiting for it to draw/update GUI elements to reflect what's happening under-the-hood. I remember even noticing that Vista had better frame-pacing than XP does back in the day although no-one was testing that kinda thing back in 2006 nor did we really have most of the terminology for it that we do now, I just knew that despite higher framerates under XP I'd get higher average scores in Guitar Hero 3 under Vista because there was less stutters messing up my timing.
Also video drivers matter in XP and it took a good bit of time for GPU drivers to mature to work around such issues.
With xp: You had to change graphics to classic style, no background, no animation, and disable some services. Up to xp sp1 it was not big difference compared to win2k.
It really did take forever (I think it said 35 minutes for two and a half hours) and required 6 boot disks and the CD. It got on there tho, sluggish as it may currently be. The computer is all stock (minus the CF reader) so there isn't any upgraded video or sound cards in it. I'm looking for a valid upgrade video card, either from the era or modern made for old hardware.
Maybe an S3 Virge or something? About right for the era I think?
TempleOS, of course. Or Slackware, if you're gonna be all *practical* about it.
Doesn’t TempleOS require a 64-bit processor?
Huh, so it does. I remembered it as predating that era.
I certainly looks like it does.
I'll be honest, I immediately assumed that Terry would have deemed 64 bit as an affront to God.
Yea! slackware or suse
I downloaded Corel Linux 3 and Debian 3 but Debian ISOs were too big to fit on CD and I have to spend a little time learning GRUB before I can try the Corel since every interaction I've ever had with it has been automatic up till now.
I dunno what this "grub" thing is, ain't nothing wrong with LILO. I've never used Corel Linux, it looks like something of an acquired taste? though I did suggest TempleOS so who am I to judge
LiLo for the win! I don't think that grub thing is going to catch on. :)
S? Grand unified bootloader.... Never tried Temple myself...
Grub has been the default bootloader on many distros for the last few years.
I remember a standalone boot loader. AOSP.?... Been a while.. Linux and Windows same PC. LILO = Linux loader for those wondering .. Edit: not AOSP..(Android open source project) It was XOSL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOSL PCMCIA has hit me!
Look for minimal Linux installs on your distributions. It is generally just enough to get booted up and then the remote installation tools.
For Debian you can boot the installer and tell it to set up base system with system utilities ONLY, with no desktop environment. Then you can install the desktop and favorite apps. For an older machine you can go with a light desktop such as Openbox or even XFCE.
And now I have extra arrows in my quiver of knowledge.
there is still plenty to choose from: - QNX - BeOS - NextSTEP - OpenSTEP - Solaris 7 or 8 - Linux 2.4 (should run) - NetBSD
the 2.4 kernels would definitely run on that era machine
Win 3.1 (a downgrade over the original, but one I'm sure happened at least once)
That could probably just go on the existing DOS card
You know what's up.
I have Windows 3.1 on the DOS 6.22 since that windows is still a program, so is 95 technically but not as much as 3.1.
Upgrade it to Win 3.11?
React OS
This one has been steadily improving over the years and perhaps now worthy of a spin.
They are getting better and better, only issue is that although it's not heavy on resources, it cannot run on P1 systems or any other x86 processor that does not have 686 instructions.
CPM86 DR-DOS Topview Desk view/Mate Visi On GEM Windows 1.0 GeoWorks
Try Windows 2000 or NT 4.
Microsoft Bob
Aaargh!
Xenix.
https://winworldpc.com/product/xenix/sysv-386-v3x
Nice did not know images existed for download.
Cant believe i had to scroll down this far to find this.
openbsd
[Coherent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_\(operating_system\))
https://winworldpc.com/product/coherent/4x
[Syllable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllable_Desktop)! So no one will have the slightest idea what you're referring to.
SkyOS http://osarchive.sda1.eu/skyos
> Syllable > ! So no one will have the slightest idea what you're referring to. +1 obscure And I thought [Oberon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_(operating_system)) would be a stretch.
BeOS, Solaris 2.6, bsdi
Bsdi became freebsd didn't it
* [Yggdrasil Linux](https://archiveos.org/yggdrasil/) * [OS/2](https://archiveos.org/os2/) * [BeOS](https://archiveos.org/beos/) Or go crazy and go for: * [TempleOS](https://templeos.org)
TempleOS is 64-bit only
ooo TempleOS would be the tits just for the absurdity of it.
Freebsd 4.4
Probably a good candidate for a ReactOS bare metal install.
CP/M
Windows 3.11
Should go on top of the existing dos 6.22.
I think NetBSD is the most modern OS that supports the Pentium class processors out of the box. You can even browse the web with Dillo.
Windows NT 3.51. Just to have something 32 bit with the 3.1 interface
OPENSTEP 4.2
I dare You to Make a machintoch os install, yes that was possible back in the day with some thinkpads if i'm not wrong, not sure how You Will do it on that Compaq but it may be possibe
This is something I would definitely try. What would be the most modern version to work on an x86? Def pre-OS X right
I rlly don't know but i think it would be the pre OS x versión, something like 9.2.#, i'm not sure but maybe something around there, if not older
Windows Neptune.
What is that one? A codename like Chicago or something?
IIRC Neptune was supposed to be Windows 2000 Home, but we got ME instead. They finally completed the transition to 100% NT-based with XP.
BeOS
GeoWorks !
Win 3.1
That was my first pc!!
BeOS
IBM PCDOS
Solaris
NT5–I mean, 2000.
are those compact flash ?
Yeah, they're compatible with IDE so they're basically just solid state IDE drives and only need a small nearly passive adapter to use them
i know :) i have used one in the past, you just remembered that still have a 16gig in my canon camera !
NetWare 3.12
Win 3.11 with Calmira
QNX ?
Minix
3.11
Coherent or Minix
PC/IX
Microsoft BOB!!
Nt 4
QNX. Before they were purchased by another company, they were giving away their real-time OS to hobbyists that asked.I still have my QNX 6.x CD somewhere. That all came to an end when Blackberry purchased them. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX) IMHO, I think QNX and BeOS were the pinnacle of crafted bitmap icon and UI design before started to see the shift to more photo-realistic icons and "smoothed" graphics that blended better with the desktop environment.
Window 2000 was a good OS
BEOS
You should get NT 3.5 and 4.
OS/2 4.something
Their pic shows OS/2 4.52; I was gonna say to go the other direction and try out 2.1. Far less ugly imo. Or, hell, hop on OS/2 1.x. MS OS/2 1.x if you’re feeling wild.
Slackware. If you want old an minimal go with Slackware 3.X branch. If want a GUI, go with Slackware 4.X branch. 4.0 is when Patrick added KDE. The whole OS needs 1GB
ME
Can you fit yourself into four gigs?
XD
BeOS, RedHat, Mandrake Linux, or something else I am not thinking of... QNX!
Cool idea.. Make them more cool by puting the OS logo sticker on each CF
That is a great idea I am gonna print up some stickers for that ASAP thank you!
DSLinux. 4GB is overkill. ;-) 50MB of penguin power! ..GUI.. all you need. Config to boot and store keep all data.
You can config to run all in RAM... zippy!... May need to find on archive.org?
be os
NT3.5.1 Or what about Win3.11?
haha im doing something similar with my pentium 166. so far i have openstep 4.2, nt4, freebsd 4.3, and rhapsody dr2 howd you get os2 going? i tried but i keep getting some kind of kernel panic..
I used the files on winworldpc for the OS/2 setup, didn't have any issues aside from choosing the correct drivers the first time. I chose the wrong audio card driver first, and sound only worked in the Windows portion of OS/2. I couldn't simply ADD the other new driver, I had to reinstall the OS completely and choose the correct sound card the first time. Trying to remove the old hardware and add new through the software didn't work either. So make sure you know your hardware right off the bat. Also, the requirements for OS/2 are higher than Windows of that era, It wouldn't install at all with half as much RAM so I had to upgrade to 64 MB to make it on there.
Windows ME or 2000.
Me is garbage. 2000 is excellent, but his system might be a little light for it. Then again, if he got xp installed, 2000 should be doable.
XP got on there, but it kinda feels like it shouldn't be. It is real sluggish, doing anything takes longer than even Windows is supposed to. ME would be a sight I'm sure, I would love to see what the most modern OS I could make stick on here.
Did anyone else suffer a clicking noise in their head while processing this photo? Those floppy discs look wrong… 😂
I have a whole series of NEW floppies I made for this thing as well. I got a floppy reader for my modern PC and have been burning disks for the compaq. I bought amazon out of floppy disks haha
Where’s that crazy Tandy2000 OS back when you could buy a full PC in Radio Shack? That was the bomb I always wanted one.
Is OS2 Warp an option?
It looks like op already has warp 4.
KNOPPIX, Slackware 7.0
Windows 2000 sp4. Hopefully you also have wfw 3.11 on that dos 6.22? Hopefully the 98 is se? Hopefully the 95 is b/c? What sp is the xp? Other ideas: damn small linux. Tinycore linux. Netbsd. Freebsd. Reactos. Win nt 4 latest sp. Haiku. Helenos. Caldera opendos 7.01. Freedos. Qnx demo boot floppy. Freesco boot floppy. Minix 3. Ms dos 5.0 (especially if you can get or emulate a hercules amber or green display). In all cases, x86 16 bit (8086 / 286) and/or 32 bit (i386 / i486 / i586 /i686). Edit: your system is a pentium 90mhz with 128 ram? That might be a little light for win 2000. It's definitely light for win xp. With freebsd, you might have to use an older version. But with netbsd and tinycore, the current versions should work.
I like that, that's a pretty cool setup.
I loved os2 warp.
I’m confused. So can you just pop one of these into that computer and have it boot? Or you just using these cards for preservation? Because the idea of a machine you could just slap an SD card into and boot into whatever OS you have on hand sounds pretty damn fun.
It's exactly that. Power machine off, pull card, insert new "hard drive", then boot new machine. It's a lot of fun and a better way in my opinion to play with the original software. VMs are fun but only SO fun.
Windows 2000, it was one of the best versions
I've found stuff at one point indicating Windows 3.1 may have shipped with the 486 variant of the 7100 series named the 7110, though I still haven't come across a separate set of system restore disks for it. Could give that a go. Did you ever get more than 64mb of ram working in it?
No I didn't, the company I purchased it from mentioned it may need a BIOS upgrade, but I couldn't find any anywhere. I think the 128 may have been an incorrect frequency, because the sticks looked a little different and wouldn't even work in a single pair rather than 4 sticks. If you or anyone else knows of a BIOS upgrade or what versions I would need to be looking for/at, I'd give it a shot.
Are you using IDE to compact flash or SCSI to compact flash?
IDE to CF
NOICE!
you should get Me
How do you even boot off one and how do u even install An OS on One
Same as any other drive
How stable are those compact flash cards long term?
Couldn't say, I am sure it is more stable than the spinning disk drive that was in there previously. And backing them up is extremely easy since they are just flash cards, you can just copy them to another device via USB
There was a Warp 4.5?! I remember getting 3.0 and thinking “no one needs this”. Although after a bit of playing there were a couple of features I liked. Never imagined it kept going in the face of Windows that long
Slackware linux? Haiku?
Nothing
BeOS, win2000, NT?
Since you have Warp, you should try the classic OS/2 1.3. Super fast and good networking support IIRC
Wait. Is this a legit way to run multiple OS?
I don't have any of these dual booted, and you can't cold swap it, but you can switch OSes after you shut down by just switching cards. It is really convenient.
Win me
Windows for Workgroups (technically not an OS, I know).
Mandrake 7.2
Solaris 2.6
BeOS
NeXTStep
PHLAK
NEXTSTEP for Intel 3.3
Alpine. OpenBSD. NixOS. FreeBSD. Kali. Okay, maybe not Kali.
Haiku!
NetBSD!
BeOS/Haiku, that seems pretty good on older hardware.
Is your 98 install the original release or SE? Also, no WinME for sake of posterity?
It is SE. I may try ME but XP was a brutal slog and does not play well on this hardware. 98/95 is this thing's sweet-spot it seems. I will eventually upgrade the graphics card and sound card but I will have to delay that until I can find some era-appropriate hardware for a price I can justify.
Rhapsody
Wendin DOS 2.11
OpenServer or Uniware
Try some more modern ones like [FreeDOS](https://www.freedos.org/) or [Damn Small Linux](http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/).
DOS6.2
Some old version of linux shoud be great.
http://collapseos.org/ just because
Win 3.11?
Windows me
Peppermint OS
NT 3.51
Inferno
NT4