4 ms·
Yes, Windows 95 run on 4MB RAM, Windows 2000 on 64MB. Than the bloat came, and nowadays Windows 10 looks more blant and has reduced UI than ever and still requi
by frik 11y ago
Yes, Windows 95 run on 4MB RAM, Windows 2000 on 64MB. Than the bloat came, and nowadays Windows 10 looks more blant and has reduced UI than ever and still requires and runs as slow as Windows 7 which had a lot of themes and transparent effects and a rather modern and nice interface. No wonder several parts of the interface like the startmenu are now in dotNet. It was already a major mistake that lead to the restart of the Longhorn project which became Vista - the former dotNet based Explorer and shell and WinFS all were dotNet applications and very slow. I run WinFS beta 2 on WinXP on an high end PC at that time and it was promising but aweful slow. Instead of adding the database-like features to NTFS driver (parts of the object features from Cairo project are still there), they added an filesystem filter driver in userland and a dotNet service. Needless to say that idiotic design and relying on dotNet for a mission critical component never worked out. Vista shipped with an improved WinXP desktop search.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoWindows 95 could almost run on 4MiB RAM, but that's with heavy swap use, as is the advertised minimum, 8MiB. 95 really needed 16MiB or so, to be fair to it. Windows NT 4 could run in 16MiB but ideally had 32MiB.
- FollowSteph3 11y agoAnd Windows 95 had no modern security checks in place, so good luck with Internet access. That stuff has performance costs. Also people seem to forget that we had to reboot those machines all the time due to crashes, more code that has performance hits. Yes there is definitely bloat but there is also a lot more going on underneath the seams than before.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago95 perhaps. NT was rock-solid.