3 ms·
I think the 486/66 would probably have been ok for Windows 95, but the 4MB of ram would have been rough.
by santoshalper 4y ago
I think the 486/66 would probably have been ok for Windows 95, but the 4MB of ram would have been rough.
- int_19h 4y agoFor Win95, it was tolerable. Win98 with IE integration everywhere (remember "Active Desktop"?) was much more of a memory hog tho.
- BobMcBob 4y agoI can tell you from first hand experience it was. 4mb was the minimum requirements and I can tell you, that legally MS was correct in that statement. When I eventually did get a copy of Win95 plus Update (SP1 basicly), I ran it for exactly 1 week before I scraped together enough money to purchase another 8mb of RAM from Fry's. After that it was fine, at least until it blew itself up.
- watersb 4y agoI ran Windows NT 4.0 on a DX2/66 -- with 32GB of RAM. The RAM cost about $750 from a Silicon Valley importer. 1994. That was during a crisis in worldwide memory availability, caused at least in part by a fire that destroyed the only factory that made a chemical required by the semiconductor industry. Our current supply chain crisis seems worse, but it isn't the first.
- ecef9-8c0f-4374 4y agoso we didn't learn anything. Sad to know.
- Koshkin 4y ago> 32GB of RAM It’s funny how our fingers have lost the ability to type “MB of RAM.”
- watersb 4y ago:-) Megabytes. Yes. Oops. I just bought some old Xeon CPUs on eBay that have 32 MB of cache. They cost rather less than $750.