I can run this on 64MB of ram. it even boots with 32. is there another OS that runs on less ram and has more features (out of the box or not) and compatibility with old x86 boxes?
>>109888042Linux
>>109888055interesting, which one?
>>109888070lol
>>109888070> Compares an OS from the early 2ks to the most recent UbuntuBruh
>>109888098What superior GUI do I get with that Netbsd? >>109888100Oh ok, I guess you're right. So which Linux?
>>109888100What was added to OS to make them so heavy compared to early 2000s OS though? Seriously.
>>109888042Nah. It struggled even with 256mb of RAM.
yep, the ultimate loonix redpill>http://www.tinycorelinux.net/
>>109888496JS
>>109888496>>109888580readable text
>>109888042how food you do it, anon, with what specs
>>109888843did*
>>109888843IMAGINE BEING AT COMPUTERS SO FAT YOU LOOK AND SEE FOOD
>>109888042>>10988884364MB is like two chicken nuggets
>>109889059kek it's a typo anon haha
>>109888070tiny core
>>109888042Maybe TinyCore Linux. I've seen it run on systems like that, meanwhile XP's requirements get a lot higher with SP3, which you need for most of the XP software suite.
>>109889552this