3 ms·
Why limit yourself to old hardware too. I was just thinking about how blazing fast Win 3.1 would run on a modern i9 machine. None of that pesky memory protect
by foobarian 5y ago
Why limit yourself to old hardware too. I was just thinking about how blazing fast Win 3.1 would run on a modern i9 machine. None of that pesky memory protection or preemptive scheduling getting in the way of getting real work done :-)
- udp 5y agoDriver support might be an issue - and it might run TOO fast!
- dTal 5y agoSingle threaded only though! So you leave a huge amount of that i9 performance on the table.
- Kwpolska 5y agoOld software can be too old for your new hardware. Windows 95 won’t boot on machines faster than 2.1 GHz without an unofficial patch [0]. Old Windows versions support only one CPU core, in 32-bit mode, without using many “fast” instructions. And on the RAM front, Windows 9x tends to get unstable if you have too much of it (512 MB is typically considered the limit). [0] https://msfn.org/board/topic/141402-windows-95-21ghz-cpu-limit-broken/ https://msfn.org/board/topic/141402-windows-95-21ghz-cpu-lim...
- LukeShu 5y agoI'd managed to get Windows 1.01 to boot on my (at the time brand-new) 2009 3GHz quad-core AMD64 CPU with I think 8GB of RAM. I don't remember which DOS version I was running it on. I'm not sure I knew how much RAM it saw. And it was surely only using 1 core, of course in 16bit mode.