Nah, 4MB is a no go. I have a 4MB laptop that I installed slack 3.something on. It turns out that all revs later than that simply wouldn't work in that small a space. I was finally able to get a single getty running ok, much of anything would swap the machine into oblivion for a good while. Let's just say that some operations took the same time as some television shows. I think that the extra few megs (8 even) would have really helped alot (it *is* twice the ram). Josh ___SIG___ On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 joel at luths.net wrote: > Quoting Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <chrome at real-time.com>: > > > I've decided to finally give Slackware a try (about 5 years after > > hearing > > about it...). > > I have a 486 w/12MB of RAM and will probably end up with a 340MB HDD. I > > want > > to set it up as a web server. (before you all shout out that 'you need > > more > > memory than that!'; remember what it used to be like, before memory was > > cheap.. it's not going to be a high-performance box, and I don't care.) > > > > Seems to me I used to run RH5.something on a 386, 8-16MB RAM (don't recall), > 500 MB HD. Was running all sorts of stuff, Apache, NFS, Samba, etc and as a > firewall. Tried 4 MB RAM but no-go. Probably could have made it work at 4MB but > back then I didn't know about turning down the minimum # servers for Apache (I > think httpd's were chewing up all the mem so swap was thrashing). It's amazing > what you can do if you forego a GUI. A 12MB 486 should be fine for > experimentation. > _______________________________________________ > tclug-list mailing list > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >