I want to know what is the best linux distro.
contain WINe & work nice on this machine with:

cpu: AMD 300MHz
ram: 64 MB
HDD: 2 gigs
etc: cdrom,floppy,usb,com,lpt
ThAnX

While I don't agree with 'more useful', I would agree with better performance and lower system requirements. I do agree with the gaming bit though. Let's do a quick comparison of minimum system requirements:lollynoob wrote:windows 98 will make that machine far more useful than linux ever will
you can play doom 2 and stuff
Windows 98 OS wrote: • A personal computer with a 486DX 66 megahertz (MHz) or faster processor (Pentium central processing unit recommended).
• 16 megabytes (MB) of memory (24 MB recommended).
• A typical upgrade from Windows 95 requires approximately 195 MB of free hard disk space, but the hard disk space may range from between 120 MB and 295 MB, depending on your computer configuration and the options that you choose to install.
• A full install of Windows 98 on a FAT16 drive requires 225 MB of free hard disk space, but may range from between 165 MB and 355 MB, depending on your computer configuration and that options that you choose to install.
• A full install of Windows 98 on a FAT32 drive requires 175 MB of free hard disk space, but may range from between 140 MB and 255 MB, depending on your computer configuration and the options that you choose to install.
Windows 2000 OS wrote: • 133 MHz or more Pentium microprocessor (or equivalent). Windows 2000 Professional supports up to two processors on a single computer.
• 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum. 32 MB of RAM is the minimum supported. 4 gigabytes (GB) of RAM is the maximum.
• A 2 GB hard disk that has 650 MB of free space. If you are installing over a network, more free hard disk space is required.
even though asked for the best Linux distro for your hardware, I think you will find higher performance from the older MS operating systems. My old laptop previously talked about used to have win98 on it and it was extremely responsive and played Zeus and Poseidon (game) beautifully, once I switched to variously Linux-based OS's on it, its responsiveness slowed dramatically, but I deal with it as I use some Linux-specific items for testing.Gentoo OS wrote: Minimal CD
CPU: i486 or later
Memory: 64 MB
Diskspace: 1.5 GB (excluding swap space)
Swap space: At least 256 MB
You can play "Doom 2" on Linux, BSD.. OS X... practically any Unix-like OS that supports SDL/OpenGL.lollynoob wrote:windows 98 will make that machine far more useful than linux ever will
you can play doom 2 and stuff
You've got to be kidding me. That machine as tayseer listed I highly doubt that it has even support for 3D acceleration, or it is some ATI Rage 128 equivalent... would be slow as hell.Brynet-Inc wrote:SDL/OpenGL.
What's so "not useful" on it? Win98 is a old but normal OS, supports old DOS games and you can run 50% of today's Win32 programs on it.Brynet-Inc wrote:The usefulness of Windows is highly debatable.
What? r128 has a DRI/DRM module for acceleration, as for the OP's particular system... there's good chance he has a Mach64 based card, those were quite common.. DRI is also supported.inflater wrote:You've got to be kidding me. That machine as tayseer listed I highly doubt that it has even support for 3D acceleration, or it is some ATI Rage 128 equivalent... would be slow as hell.
Who said Linux?inflater wrote:Also actually emulating MS-DOS (dosbox for games I presume?) or running wine on top of modern day Linux with that machine can be even SLOWER.
Again, another Linuxism.. X itself does not need a very impressive setup, Desktop Environments are the problem... it's more then possible to make a decent Unix workstation out of an older system.inflater wrote: Wake up, it's not Intel quad core, but a 300MHz rig and every today's distro wants at least 1.8GHz CPU with 256 MB RAM as a minimum for GUI.
...Brynet-Inc wrote:Who said Linux?
Brynet-Inc wrote:You can play "Doom 2" on Linux,
...Brynet-Inc wrote:Who said anything about emulation?
Okay, "Wine is not a emulator" I know its meaning, but it slows down your PC 50 percent as opposed when using a pure Windows environment, so its slow like a emulation mechanism. And for me, the *nix win api collection "Wine" means WINdows Emulator, think whatever you want.AhmadTayserDajani wrote:contain WINe & work nice on this machine with:
So... DOOM 2's engine is just *written* on the screen with no acceleration (SDL) under X.org... thats gotta stutter.., or it runs under OpenGL?... never seen OpenGl can do 2D...Brynet-Inc wrote:...There are native ports of that particular game
It actually runs great, I've wasted lots of time playing itinflater wrote:So... DOOM 2's engine is just *written* on the screen with no acceleration (SDL) under X.org... thats gotta stutter.., or it runs under OpenGL?... never seen OpenGl can do 2D...Brynet-Inc wrote:...There are native ports of that particular game(well actually doom 2 IS a 2d game isnt it?
its not full 3D.. something like "2.5D", but some OpenGL ports make it 3D like you can aim with mouse etc, but it has almost no effect when e.g. aiming on the head, so its still 2.5D)
So you're saying that running Doom 2 under an emulator (which probably uses SDL as the display) is going to be faster than running a native port of Doom 2? Though I agree, if you want to run an old game on old hardware for that authentic experience (or possibly required bug-for-bug compatibility), run an old OS.inflater wrote:Summa summarum: If you want to play a dos game on a slow computer, do not install modern operating systems and install older. If you want to play a dos game on a high-end computer and still want to use all functions from a high-end OS, install a emulation for DOS like dosbox. End of debate.
Whoa. Just. Whoa. Did you just poke fun at people with autistic disorders?lollynoob wrote:lol way to have aspergers