2 ms·
> not an entirely like-for-like comparison. I'm not sure why Windows minimum hardware requirements are relevant at all. If they were, they could get massive pe
by pessimizer 3y ago
> not an entirely like-for-like comparison.
I'm not sure why Windows minimum hardware requirements are relevant at all. If they were, they could get massive performance improvements by raising the hardware requirements. "Sure it's slow, but it's running on literally 1% of minimum recommended RAM!"
- nullindividual 3y agoThey were very relevant back in the '90s. So relevant, it's why Windows 9x existed. The Windows NT 4 minimum system requirements around RAM were too high, thus deemed too expensive for consumers.