42 ms·
To be fair to Microsoft, that's still mostly true for the Windows server editions. The pared down version without the GUI even runs fine on 512MB of memory. Th
by MichaelZuo 3y ago
To be fair to Microsoft, that's still mostly true for the Windows server editions.
The pared down version without the GUI even runs fine on 512MB of memory. Though still a far cry from the 64 MB that XP needed, which included the GUI.
- Clamchop 3y ago95 needed at least 4MB, ideally 8MB or more of memory. Which means it will fit in the cache of modern CPUs many times over, though I may be ignoring some swap stuff. 512MB isn't a lot today so might as well use it, at least for things that are useful, but it's nevertheless impressive how puny these old operating systems were, despite having user-facing functionality that would still feel familiar and natural to today's users.
- altintx 3y agoIn 7th grade, my class had Boeing surplus computers at each student's desk. Most were 386SX with 4MB. I remember getting a chance to harvest parts from a broken machine and mine went up to 8MB. That was enough to install and run Windows 95.* * On paper It was awful and while that CPU did no favors, it was swapping that made it awful.
- throwawaymobule 3y ago> Which means it will fit in the cache of modern CPUs many times over, though I may be ignoring some swap stuff. has anyone ever done this with an OS? I assume it'd be impossible with hardware that needs DMA, and a bunch of other reasons, but it'd be cool to see a machine keep running after you pull out the RAM.