I need some help finding a distro for a very old machine.

It’s my family’s old desktop with 2001 components (bought in 2004) and a Pentium CPU that is NOT i686. I checked the exact model and architecture once but I don’t remember it now. The only thing I remember is that it’s not i686 so 99% of modern 32 bit distros don’t work on it (stuck right after grub).

The machine has 1 Gb of DDR1 RAM though so I think it may be useful or at least fun to play around with.

Now it’s on Windows XP that runs quite well but doesn’t support modern SSL certificates so it can’t browse the internet (idk how to fix it ok?).

A long time ago I tried to run multiple distros in live mode on it and got only one (Puppy) to work. Display, sound, ethernet and pretty much everything worked fine. GPU seemed to be an issue though because NVidia and I couldn’t install the driver (it was skill issue and I think it’s possible to do). But now it doesn’t work for some reason.

Are there any Linux distros or other operating systems (preferably not deprecated) that I can install on it? And btw it does have bootable USB support.

EDIT: There are way too many answers and a lot of ones that don’t mind the architecture limitations. I’m grateful to everyone who replied but I have to close this discussion now and I will not reply to further answers. I have received enough information and I cannot physically read so many replies.

  • AbidanYre@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    15 days ago

    Tiny Core would probably run on it.

    I have it on a PII 333MHz with 192MB of RAM from 1999. It grinds to a halt if I try to open pretty much any modern website though.

    • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.mlOP
      0·
      15 days ago

      I just checked it and it seems to be an independent distro. Does it have a repo or do I have to compile everything I want to install?

          • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
            0·
            15 days ago

            the repos are browsable inside the package manager - I would imagine they are browsable outside as well, but I have never had cause to do so.

            honestly, give tinycore a shot. fire it up in a VM and take a look around - it really is an amazingly useful distro.

              • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
                0·
                15 days ago

                understood. tinycore is a live installable distro, so you can still test it on bare metal.

                pick the GUI flavor and kick the tires for a while.

      • superweeniehutjrs@lemmy.world
        0·
        15 days ago

        If you do compile something, it is very easy to make it an installable package you could share. I’m not sure how the repos are managed

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        0·
        15 days ago

        It’s not that bad 😆. But there’s definitely a learning curve, something I’m working on figuring out myself, at the moment. There’s some practice guides, but it’s certainly a unique beast.

  • CocoLopez@lemmy.world
    0·
    15 days ago

    Void with Xfce has done wonders to my atom cpu with 2 GB of ram. Also iceWM has seen a new release that might worth checking

  • TurboWafflz@lemmy.world
    0·
    15 days ago

    Perhaps openbsd or netbsd? They’re probably less likely to drop hardware support for your device in the near future than any linux distribution

    Freebsd is also an option but you would have to compile it yourself as the prebuilt binaries are currently 686 despite it having support back to 486

      • TurboWafflz@lemmy.world
        0·
        15 days ago

        I’ve never noticed BSDs being much slower, and if you’re already used to minimal linux distros like arch it’s not that hard to set them up unless you like need linux-only software.

        • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.mlOP
          0·
          15 days ago

          I meant slower in terms of any rendering (web, 3D or anything else). And I’m only used to graphical DEs. I installed Arch via archinstall a few times and had a minimal Debian server with nothing except ssh working but that’s about it

          • TurboWafflz@lemmy.world
            0·
            15 days ago

            You definitely can install a graphical desktop on whichever BSD, you’ll just have to follow instructions online somewhere instead of running a premade script.

            If you want something really easy to use graphically right out of the box there’s also Haiku, it’s a completely independent OS that’s sort of an open source clone of BeOS but a lot more unixy than BeOS was. It’s really lightweight and has maybe my favorite desktop GUI out of every operating system I’ve used. The only real downside to it is that there isn’t an amazing web browser for it yet, the built in WebPositive is a little lacking in support for modern sites and GNOME Web, which you can install from HaikuDepot was a little unstable last time I tried it. If you don’t need to use the web a ton though (which is probably the more pleasant option on your particular system regardless of browser), it’s really nice.

  • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
    0·
    15 days ago

    Are you sure it’s not a 686? Because apparently the Pentium Pro from 1995 is already a 686, by 2001 the Pentium 4 was already out.

      • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
        0·
        14 days ago

        I’m still skeptical. At the time of the original Pentium (the last 586 from Intel, the fastest of which was 300 MHz), the usual amount of RAM was something like 16 or 32 MB. A 586 with 1 GB of RAM is extremely weird and probably impossible unless it’s some sort of high-end server. This does not check out.

        Oh and DDR is also from around the time of the Pentium 4. I don’t think there exists a machine that has both DDR and an original Pentium (aka 586). Again, this does not check out and is probably impossible.

        There could be another reason it won’t boot.

        • jcarax@beehaw.org
          0·
          14 days ago

          Yeah, I’m with you. 2001 and DDR… there’s something else going on with the failure to boot. I don’t think the Pentium 3 ever supported DDR, so this is probably a Pentium 4. If truly a model released in 2001, it would be Willamette, but that required RDRAM. DDR support was introduced with Northwood in 2002. On the other hand, it could be the P4 that was new in 2004, Prescott, and the 2001 statement comes from the first year the P4 was released.

    • qwioeue@lemmy.world
      0·
      14 days ago

      Ya, that’s exactly my thought. I had Penitum 1 and Pentium 3/4 during those years. Pretty sure they are 686 and beyond.

  • f00f/eris@startrek.websiteEnglish
    0·
    15 days ago

    Damn Small Linux is a recently resurrected distro made specifically to run on old 32-bit PCs. You probably won’t be doing much web browsing or gaming on this device, but you should at least be able to get it to function

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    0·
    15 days ago

    Just reading through the comments, and your post. You’d honestly have a much better time getting a Pi of some sort and just running that. This is antiquated hardware that is going to have all sorts of headaches even if you do get it running.

  • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    14 days ago

    Now it’s on Windows XP that runs quite well but doesn’t support modern SSL certificates so it can’t browse the internet (idk how to fix it ok?).

    Yes there are modernized versions of Windows XP with updated certificates and whatnot.

    The only thing I remember is that it’s not i686 so 99% of modern 32 bit distros don’t work on it (stuck right after grub).

    Debian has images for i386: https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/i386/

    But… frankly the power consumption of that thing will be just crazy. Take for example this example, a more modern Pentium D vs a Pi:

    https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/6390478?baseline=5583060

  • HumanPerson@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    13 days ago

    Boot to BIOS. That should show you either CPU arch. or an exact model that you can check on Intel’s website. It may be an issue entirely unrelated to the architecture.

  • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
    0·
    15 days ago

    A long time ago I tried to run multiple distros in live mode on it and got only one (Puppy) to work. Display, sound, ethernet and pretty much everything worked fine. GPU seemed to be an issue though because NVidia and I couldn’t install the driver (it was skill issue and I think it’s possible to do). But now it doesn’t work for some reason.

    Puppy linux has 3 versions, based on different distros. Maybe you tried one version back then, and now a different one?

      • fpslem@lemmy.world
        0·
        15 days ago

        Puppy was going to me my suggestion too, before I read that you’d already used it. Maybe try some of the other versions? If you used a Debian- or Ubuntu-based Puppy, you could try a Slack-based one, or vice-versa. Puppy’s organization is a little confusing, in my opinion, but it does give a user some options. You also might try some of the “puplets” that aren’t official Puppy distros but are part of the Puppy family.

        https://puppylinux-woof-ce.github.io/family-tree.html