HD Install :: Why Do an HD install ?



Many thanks, everyone.  I've already downloaded DSL v2.3, so I'll try out all your suggestions.

roberts: THANK YOU for the reminder about the browser cache - I'll point it to the ramdisk.
Interestingly - DSL seems to attract users with old hardware (like myself) that are old (but still candidates for DSL/Knoppix) and which may have had (like mine) a Windoze-something mid-ninety stuff. I suppose it must be the small footprint for DSL and more importantly the small growth of footprint that attracts people.
My own interest to especially HD install (I'm sure I share it with others) are that my IBM 365XD Laptop with CDRom does not have a BIOS capable of CDRom boot !  :(
And in my case I want to replace WINDOZE entirely with a DSL (Frugall I guess), CDRom bootable or not.
It could be nice, if someone could write install/setup programs targeted for the various 'scenarios' to get to DSL, like:
- I'm on MS-DOS (FAT16), now I want DSL
- I'm on MS-DOS+WIN3x (FAT16), now I want DSL
- I'm on Win9x, now I want DSL
- I'm on WinNT (NTFS), now I want DSL
- I'm on Win2K (NTFS), now I want DSL
- I'm on WinME, now I want DSL
- I'm on WinXP (NTFS), now I want DSL
and, forget the rest, they know *nix already :D
Let me not dwell over a wish list here, and keep the HD install reasons as this:
  There's many out there, who cannot boot from USB/CDRom !

Otherwise I totally agree with Humpty and thanks for asking  :)
Peter Rosenberg
Old computers usually means they have a floppy drive which it can boot from. The simpliest answer is to download the bootfloppy image and make a boot floppy. Then with cdrom in drive, boot from the floppy and away you go.

I know others have written about loadlin and other such. But I find the boot floppy the easiest.

As for Windows type systems, my knowlede is becomming so faded that others would have to help you there.
Anyone who has played with win95 and freeware on a dx2, hopes to find something in linux that will give a gui and some basic programs to play with..a newbie soon realizes that there are few distros available at this level..mulinux, deli..dsl looks pretty good and claimes to power a dx with 16 meg ram..those familiar with linux know this is not a gui environment. most newbies likely don'nt have a clue..I chose a hd install because on old units dsl requires a few extensions to be anything..and my attemps to frugal were interupted by no space to add..this of course can be solved but people go with what is easiest and the availabilityof the hd install led me to try a hd install and was a fast track to adding several extensions..great help from the forum got me a nice looking gui desktop hd install and based on the known alternatives to dsl  I was impressed..I am not suprized people flock to it in hope of powering an old box..what is interesting is that there are so few alternatives..dsl has a different agenda but is caught in the demand for small fast gui linux for these old antiques...personally one 95 box is enough..and a couple of 51/2' floppy command liners leaves me with a few good boxes crying for an os...dispite my occasional frustrations as a linux newbie..dsl HD rocked my world..I can not be the only one..what is so surprizing?
Am new to all this so may be missing something.  I install to HD on 3 early P2 boxes which run BOINC workunits 24x7. I can run DSL in ram but if I lose power or need to reboot, I lose all the work the box has done on that particular work unit. Some work units take several days to run. Installing to HD protects against this loss. DSL still seems to run mostly in RAM. The boxes do not have recordable CD drives. Is there a better way to do this besides install to HD?
Next Page...
original here.