DSL 4.2.5 mouse (PS/2) not recognized...DAMN Damn Small Linux
in [Setup]
|
Prev: SysAdmin from a smartphone
Next: She kissed me
From: philo on 3 Jun 2010 20:27 On 06/03/2010 02:52 PM, RayLopez99 wrote: > Some background on me: programmer in C#, some of my programs are run > commercially, own my own business, heavy Windows user, very > knowledgeable about PCs (built about a dozen for myself and friends > from scratch, all Windows machines) hand RedHat Linux dual booted > about 12 years ago with NT. > > I have an old Pentium II (1996 or so) with a tiny amount of RAM (about > 26 MB!I think it says on bootup). > > Installed over a year ago DSL (ver. 4.2.5) on this old Pentium, which > stands for Damn Small Linux. System was running Windows 2000 fine, > <snip> total bull Win2k will not run with just 26 megs of RAM... even with 64 megs it would be too slow to be useful
From: The Natural Philosopher on 3 Jun 2010 20:32 RayLopez99 wrote: > On Jun 4, 1:39 am, Mike Easter <Mi...(a)ster.invalid> wrote: >> c.o.l.s only >> >> There's a hwinfo on Hiren's, along with a lot of other system id tools >> to choose from. >> > > Trouble is, as of the moment my mouse is not being recognized It knows who you are Ray. Several of us clubbed together and built a DNA sensing mouse based on a Linux operating system: When it detects your fingers on it, it tells the computer its actually a flash stick. I won't go into the tie ups with the national security agency that got it plugged into your setup without you noticing: You simply wouldn't believe me.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 3 Jun 2010 20:33 philo wrote: > On 06/03/2010 02:52 PM, RayLopez99 wrote: >> Some background on me: programmer in C#, some of my programs are run >> commercially, own my own business, heavy Windows user, very >> knowledgeable about PCs (built about a dozen for myself and friends >> from scratch, all Windows machines) hand RedHat Linux dual booted >> about 12 years ago with NT. >> >> I have an old Pentium II (1996 or so) with a tiny amount of RAM (about >> 26 MB!I think it says on bootup). >> >> Installed over a year ago DSL (ver. 4.2.5) on this old Pentium, which >> stands for Damn Small Linux. System was running Windows 2000 fine, >> > > > <snip> > > total bull > > Win2k will not run with just 26 megs of RAM... > even with 64 megs it would be too slow to be useful > I think what Ray means is that all it has left AFTER it boots up WinDoze.
From: High Plains Thumper on 3 Jun 2010 21:19 The Natural Philosopher wrote: > philo wrote: >> RayLopez99 wrote: >> >>> Some background on me: programmer in C#, some of my programs are >>> run commercially, own my own business, heavy Windows user, very >>> knowledgeable about PCs (built about a dozen for myself and >>> friends from scratch, all Windows machines) hand RedHat Linux >>> dual booted about 12 years ago with NT. >>> >>> I have an old Pentium II (1996 or so) with a tiny amount of RAM >>> (about 26 MB!I think it says on bootup). >>> >>> Installed over a year ago DSL (ver. 4.2.5) on this old Pentium, >>> which stands for Damn Small Linux. System was running Windows >>> 2000 fine, >> >> <snip> total bull >> >> Win2k will not run with just 26 megs of RAM... even with 64 megs it >> would be too slow to be useful > > I think what Ray means is that all it has left AFTER it boots up > WinDoze. My venerable Dell Latitude C600 dual boot laptop with 850 MHz Intel Mobile and 512 MB RAM takes a long time to boot up and boot down with Windows 2000. To run Win2K on anything less would be insane, IMHO. -- HPT
From: RayLopez99 on 4 Jun 2010 05:00
On Jun 4, 3:25 am, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This isn't "Linux". This is trying to run modern software, even > stripped modern software, on antique and obscure hardware. But that is Linux--Linux runs everywhere, remember? Even on your cell phone. Even in a supercomputer. That's the propaganda. > Laptops, in > particular, have always been flakey about proprietary drivers and > unusual chipsets designed to save a few pennies, a watt of power > there, or a square inch of board space somewhere else. I've helped > design and build enough server and mini-system hardware to have some > handle on the issues. If the manufacturer didn't provide drivers, it's > unreasonable to ask another vendor or a user support community, unpaid > and unthanked, to make it work for you. Fair point. So perhaps I should not put Linux on the laptop. I'm not sure you understand this point, since maybe I was not clear, but right now I'm installing Linux on a Pentium I/II (not sure which) from 1997 or so that's a desktop, not a laptop. The laptop is a Dell Inspiron series I think from 1999/00 also with a PII. > > For the amount of time you've just burned, you can invest in a very > modestly priced, far more powerful system capable of running the OS of > your choice. In fact, you could even experiement and try a micro- > system if you need small operating systems for expertise. But chipsets > 15 years old? *Laptop* chipsets 15 years old, when you haven't even > named the model number of the laptop? That's unfair to expect of any > OS. > > Go ahead. Try and install a contemporary Windows OS on it, without the > manufacturer's installation media and drivers. I'll bet that at least > two components won't work. Right. But the PS/2 mouse? You would think that's pretty standard. BTW Puppy Linux running off the CD-ROM did ok with the video card--I can see OK at 1024x resolution. Mouse, keyboard and videocard, and CD-ROM and HD--is that too much to ask for Linux to recognize on a 12 year old system? Windows XP, 2000 and NT (in reverse order) had no problems with this hardware. To be continued... going to swap to a USB mouse and see if that works...trouble is...I kid you not, but I think this system has a USB 1.0 bus driver, but in theory USB 2.0 is backwards compatible...we'll see. RL |