Re: Later Red Hat can't install on earlier machines?

spike1_at_freenet.co.uk
Date: 02/25/05 

Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:11:56 +0000

mailbox@cpacker.org wrote:

> J wrote:
>> On 24 Feb 2005 13:15:26 -0800, mailbox@cpacker.org (Charles Packer)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >After several years of using RH6, I tried moving up to RH9, only
>> >to get an error message "You are trying to install on a machine
>> >which isn't supported by this release of Red Hat Linux".
>>
>> What processor is in your computer?

> Pentium-S, 200MHz...pretty ancient, eh? However, the release notes
> (thanks, Lenard) say merely that this is a _recommended_ minimum.
> Likewise on other parameters, such as hard drive size, there is no clue
> as to why Red Hat would have reason to deny me the pleasure of
> installing version 9 entirely. And I was trying it with the
> minimum-sized configuration, ~450 MB, well within the 1.8GB size of my
> partition.

How much RAM do you have?
I'd've thought it'd complain about ram size if that was going to be a
problem rather than just say "your system's not compatible, go away" though.
So much for helpful error messages.

Try a couple of the other linux versions. Most should have kernels compiled
for i586 by now, rather than the old i386 ones, which would ban 486 and 386
users... Can't think of any that have an i686 only kernel though. (Although
that might be the thing redhat's whining about.)

Relevant Pages