4 ms·
No, it's not even comparable. Windows NT came in the early 90s and required a whopping 16MB of RAM (at a time where most home PCs could not even address that m
by AshamedCaptain 3y ago
No, it's not even comparable. Windows NT came in the early 90s and required a whopping 16MB of RAM (at a time where most home PCs could not even address that much). Windows 9x came _years later_ and only required 4MB. And 9x was already considered bloated (new GUI et al).
- sillywalk 3y agoTo be pedantic, Windows 95 needed 8MB to be usable without constantly swapping.
- AshamedCaptain 3y agoWell, to be pedantic, it's not like NT would be usable with 16MB either; I remember the desktop taking 5 minutes to show and the HDD constantly thrashing. EDIT: Actually, I just checked, and NT 3.5 opens in around 8 minutes and uses 20MiB of swap, when booted with 12MB.
- andai 3y agoInteresting. What is it about NT that causes such a high memory requirement?
- rantingdemon 3y agoWell, it wasn't meant for home PCs.... It was marketed and sold as a business OS. I agree with the Op (OPs?) that it was revolutionary.