Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ank2

Red Hats Tooo big

Recommended Posts

I have just got Red Hat 7.1 and it will not install on my computer. It says on the book cover that a minimum of 16MB is required and 32MB is reccomended. This is the same that SuSE asks for. But every time I try to install Red Hat it tells me I don''t have enough memory. Why? I have a P166 with 16MB of RAM and a 1.5GB harddrive. This seemed to be enough for SuSE. What if I installed Red Hat using the from the hard drive option? would that work? if so how would I go about doing this? NOTE: I already have Suse installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you getting that message right at the start of the instalation? I guess some packages might need more memory, but the kernel and the base files shouldnt, if you are getting this message during the instalation of a package, deselect it and try again, also, you might want to try the text mode instalation, which should be easier on your amount of memory than the default graphical instalation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tried the text installation by typing in
linux text
and pressing enter. Then it tells me I don''t have enough memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had the same problem. Despite what RedHat says, I think you do need at least 32MB minimum to install, at least for 7.1. If I remember, RH 6.2 could install on 16MB.


Hitchhiker90
"There''s one bitch in the world, one bitch with many faces" -- Jay
"What are you people, on dope?" -- Mr. Hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for your help everyone but since I couldn''t get it working I replaced it with another book and am now sticking with SuSE.
I can''t believe that it won''t install on my computer. I mean thats one of the biggest plus points of linux, the fact that it will work on almost every computer. Even WINDOWS installs on my machine, why can''t Red Hat?
Is there a distrobution that you guys would you recommend for my system? Something with an installation no more complicated then SuSE or debian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its partly because RedHat tries to be a power horse server and would need some extra memory and the such. As for other distros, I''ve only used 2 and that was Slackware 3.0 and Redhat. Never tried SuSe or Debian. Slackware''s install was a bit different from the others, didn''t really have a gui installer, it was more text based, and you would select packages like the A set, N set and the such, and it would ask you which individual programs you wanted to install. I don''t know if they still do this in 7.0+ or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Hitchhiker90
Slackware''s install was a bit different from the others, didn''t really have a gui installer, it was more text based, and you would select packages like the A set, N set and the such, and it would ask you which individual programs you wanted to install. I don''t know if they still do this in 7.0+ or not.

That sounds just like what I saw in Slackware 8.0''s installer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Slackware is still doing that, an in fact, the text installation of slackware can run on even less that 16mb of ram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by ank2
I can''t believe that it won''t install on my computer. I mean thats one of the biggest plus points of linux, the fact that it will work on almost every computer. Even WINDOWS installs on my machine, why can''t Red Hat?

It can. Make the clear distinction between the operating system and the installer; the installer may have failed to run on your system for a number of reasons (and I would advise you a.) check RedHat Bugzilla for any known issues with your hardware; and b.) contact RedHat support/customer services). The operating system itself can still run on your hardware.

To further explain, a columnist for the now defunct Maximum Linux magazine wasn''t able to install any version of Linux onto her Sony Vaio laptop computer, so she went to an installfest at her local LUG (Linux Users Group) where the hard drive was removed, slaved to another machine, and Linux was installed that way. It voided her warranty, but she got the penguin on her boxette.

Since Linux is free software and generally unsupported by vendors (except those that make certain sever peripherals/components), hardware compatibility issues remain one of the biggest thorns in the side of Linux. The other is productivity software.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
It can. Make the clear distinction between the operating system and the installer;


I know the operating system will easily run on my PC but I don't understand why red hat thinks just because an install is graphical it makes things easy. Personally I think that a text install can be just as easy if done right. SuSE did something similar but at least they gave a good alternative.

[edited by - ank2 on March 25, 2002 5:56:54 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by ank2
...I don''t understand why red hat thinks just because an install is graphical it makes things easy. Personally I think that a text install can be just as easy if done right.

Tell that to the average Windows user, Red Hat''s target audience for it''s desktop install. RH7.0 was the first to feature a graphical install. 6.0 had a "graphical text" install.

quote:
SuSE did something similar but at least they gave a good alternative.

But why would anyone not want to use YaST?!

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are you complaining about, you try to fit a recommended 32MB system on a 16 MB machine ?
You obviously selected the wrong distro for your low performance system.
Now, I agree with you that Redhat is resources hungry, but it is more oriented to people who are used to the bells and whistles of a Windows or Macintosh operating system type like.
The title of your post is misleading, it should have been:
"My system is too small " or "I selected the wrong distro "
You looks like the perfect candidate to install a Linux from scratch distribution. You know, the kind of distro that fits on a single floppy.
If you really want to install RH7.1 at any cost maybe you should get an extra 16 Mb of ram ( an extra GB on your hard disk wouldn''t hurt too )
I hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
But why would anyone not want to use YaST?!



Exactly and graphical text installs are easy anyway why have something like YaST2 that takes up space?

quote:
you try to fit a recommended 32MB system on a 16 MB machine


The copy of Red Hat I got came with a book. On the back of the book it stated that it would run on a 16MB machine with something like 486 minimum processor and 800MB hard disk space. My machine was better then the minimum spec so I bought the book. As soon as I found out that the minimum spec didn't work I got myself a refund.

quote:
Now, I agree with you that Redhat is resources hungry, but it is more oriented to people who are used to the bells and whistles of a Windows or Macintosh operating system type like.


I would agree if it was any other operating system but at the moment very few typical home users have linux installed on there machines (at least here in the UK). Most of the people with linux installed on there machine are ethier hackers, IT specilists or students on advanced courses. All of these people should hav no trouble installing linux useing something like YaST or debains installer.
But your right I selected the wrong distro, next time i'll check the books website before getting th book.

[edited by - ank2 on March 26, 2002 5:17:43 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand your frustration when trying to install any kind of software , on a system that just meets the minimum requirement.
I''ve been there, done that and ended upset too.
I think that software company are guilty too by "lowering" the minimum requirement of a system so they can sell a maximum number of copies.
My rules are:
1) NEVER install any software on a system that just meets the minimum specs required by the software company ( be it a game or an operating system )
2) If you install it on a system that meets the suggested optimum hardwarer requirment expect it to run slowly
3) Take the optimum suggested specs ( amount of ram, hard disk space or processor speed ) and multiply them by 2 in order to get good performances.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Biased turkey
My rules are:
1) NEVER install any software on a system that just meets the minimum specs required by the software company ( be it a game or an operating system )
2) If you install it on a system that meets the suggested optimum hardwarer requirment expect it to run slowly
3) Take the optimum suggested specs ( amount of ram, hard disk space or processor speed ) and multiply them by 2 in order to get good performances.



I know. In another case I would never have bought it, just I had such a good install with SuSE I mistakenly expected the same from Red Hat. But I don''t think performance would have been too bad if I had gotten past the install(with linux being so configureable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t remember you mentioning the type of installation used, is it the default or the expert mode ?
In expert mode, you can select the installed packages and choose if you want use a desktop environment, like gnome or kde ( these desktops of course require a lot of memory and disk space )
I don''t remember if you have the choice of deselecting the Linux graphic mode XFree86 , installing and running Redhat7.1 in pure text console mode
Maybe Redhat should add a chapter in their documentation:
ScrewingthecustomerHOWTO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Biased turkey
I don''t remember you mentioning the type of installation used, is it the default or the expert mode ?


I tried both then I tried all the command line options that are supposed to help lower the amount of RAM used. Unfortuneatly nothing worked.

quote:
( these desktops of course require a lot of memory and disk space )

Already tried them, they both work pretty well on my PC(except the start-up). Other window managers like icewm and BlackBox work VERY fast.

quote:
ScrewingthecustomerHOWTO

True.
But I would still like to know what I am missing. Does Red Hat have anything that SuSE doesn''t?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites