I have here a P3-1Ghz with 512 megabytes of RAM on an Asus CUSI-M (SiS630M) motherboard in a compact case. I thought I'd try running RemixOS on it, under the rationale that Android should be friendlier to old PC hardware than any other modern system because plenty of ultramobile devices it runs on *have* about the same power of old PC hardware.
The CD-ROM drive is a slim unit that's unfortunately quite dead, and I don't have any of my old IDE optical drives handy; plus the computer only has USB1.1 (from which it can't boot without Plop Bootmanager and even that's sketchy) and I don't have any USB2 PCI cards, so it requires some creative ways to get a live system running. My idea is to either put the OS on the drive from my main computer and then transfer it across, or get the system on another drive, plug it in the secondary IDE channel, boot it and install to the primary drive from there.
I plugged the drive into my win10 box with a IDE-to-USB2 converter and ran the Windows installer program; it did its thing, but when I transfer the drive to the PIII it doesn't boot - it just stays there at the BIOS screen forever, as if there was no bootloader on the hard disk (I understand the installer, which seems derived from UNetBootin, should have put one there). This happens both with FAT32 and NTFS.
So I tried dd'ing the image to the hard drive directly using a Linux computer. That at least got me to the bootloader, but when I try to boot (in guest mode) it complains about Intel Powerclamp not working and some other process being incompatible with the CPU. Then it reboots.
I then tried using Rufus to write the image to the hard disk, and that caused a cleaner attempt - no complaints and it goes straight to "looking for Android-x86 on /dev/sda1, found"... and then reboots.
Notably my idea seems to work otherwise - I can boot any Linux live by Rufus-ing it to one of the two drives, and if I put the live on the second drive I can then boot it, run the installer and install it on the first; by way of an experiment I installed Mint like this and it booted to a desktop just fine (if slowly).
I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong with the image files, or if I'm just trying to install it on an excessively ancient and unsupported computer - which would be too bad, really, as it seems an ideal solution to revive slow hardware.
The CD-ROM drive is a slim unit that's unfortunately quite dead, and I don't have any of my old IDE optical drives handy; plus the computer only has USB1.1 (from which it can't boot without Plop Bootmanager and even that's sketchy) and I don't have any USB2 PCI cards, so it requires some creative ways to get a live system running. My idea is to either put the OS on the drive from my main computer and then transfer it across, or get the system on another drive, plug it in the secondary IDE channel, boot it and install to the primary drive from there.
I plugged the drive into my win10 box with a IDE-to-USB2 converter and ran the Windows installer program; it did its thing, but when I transfer the drive to the PIII it doesn't boot - it just stays there at the BIOS screen forever, as if there was no bootloader on the hard disk (I understand the installer, which seems derived from UNetBootin, should have put one there). This happens both with FAT32 and NTFS.
So I tried dd'ing the image to the hard drive directly using a Linux computer. That at least got me to the bootloader, but when I try to boot (in guest mode) it complains about Intel Powerclamp not working and some other process being incompatible with the CPU. Then it reboots.
I then tried using Rufus to write the image to the hard disk, and that caused a cleaner attempt - no complaints and it goes straight to "looking for Android-x86 on /dev/sda1, found"... and then reboots.
Notably my idea seems to work otherwise - I can boot any Linux live by Rufus-ing it to one of the two drives, and if I put the live on the second drive I can then boot it, run the installer and install it on the first; by way of an experiment I installed Mint like this and it booted to a desktop just fine (if slowly).
I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong with the image files, or if I'm just trying to install it on an excessively ancient and unsupported computer - which would be too bad, really, as it seems an ideal solution to revive slow hardware.
No comments:
Post a Comment