"While it's entirely possible that linux won't work on the machines (it does happen), the fact that it doesn't work on *any* of them makes me wonder about your boot-disk (and possibly root-disk) integrity. Linux does work on most AT-386's it seems."
I still have a pair or three of such historically-significant garbage which I don't dare to throw away. 386SX, Am386 and 386DX, with 2, 8 or 16 MB RAM (36-pin SIMMs), MIO cards, Trident 8900 or 9000 VGAs, IDE with CHS disk size limit 528 MB, 5.25" floppy, DIN keyboard, serial mouse ... what else. Ah, 3C509 Ethernet, ISAPNP NE2k, Intel Etherexpress10...
It is still possible to combine Linux kernel and busybox to boot on that hardware, but not to run anything much else. Impressive anyway :>
Almost exactly a year before I installed Linux, and about the same time a friend was trying to talk me into installing 386BSD. :-) I stuck it out with DOS (with a little Win 3.1) for a bit longer until I got a faster machine. (386SX25 to replace the 386SX16....) After all, I didn't have Turbo Pascal or Turbo C for 386BSD, and I hadn't heard of Linux yet.
Besides, I had access to "fast" SVR4 and SunOS 4.1.2 (soon 4.1.3) hosts over a high-speed 9600 serial network directly from my dorm via Kermit! What more could I want?
Ah, yes, the (not-terribly-) good old days.
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
This post is tagged twice as "historical", "Linus Torvalds" and "Linux". Is there a reason, or is this just a typo?
It's an intermittent bug I'm trying to track down...