3 ms·
386? For Win95, that really should be a 486.
by Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
386? For Win95, that really should be a 486.
- floydnoel 2y agoi recall a buddy of mine betting that i couldn't get 95 to run on my 386 which had a full set of 8x1MB RAM sticks. It worked... okish. haha
- Sohcahtoa82 2y agoYeah, we ran Win95 on a 386 with only 4 MB of RAM, and it worked, but it was not a pleasurable experience.
- rekabis 2y agoAnd now, with a thousand times more RAM, you can get an equally unpleasurable experience running Windows 11 on only 4Gb of RAM.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y agoCould have stopped with "running Windows 11" and had a true comment. Not looking forward to being forced to upgrade to Win11 with my next CPU upgrade.
- geon 2y agoPentium 90 with 32 mb ram at least. 95 was dog slow even on a 486 dx2 66 with 20 mb ram.
- nullindividual 2y agoMost of the issues with the hardware of the era was the dog-shit slow IDE HDDs and the price of RAM was too high (one reason NT4 wasn't targeted for the home). Move to flash storage, max out RAM, and things get better.