3 ms·
95 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 s
by Clamchop 3y ago
95 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.