3 ms·

Did not realize that Win95 can technically run on a 20Mhz 386DX.

by xhrpost 12d ago

weinzierl 12d ago
Good question. I ran Slackware Linux and DOS 5.0 on mine. I think Win95 was my Pentium 100 MHz already so it sounds a bit sus, but the FAQ section of OP had items about Win95, that is where I got the idea from.
badsectoracula 12d ago
It "technically" can - i used Win95 on an AMD 386DX with 4MB of RAM back in the 90s for a little. Most of the time was spent waiting for the computer to do something while the HDD was constantly working. The Pentium MMX with 32MB i replaced it with was MUCH faster, practically everything was instant.
- glitchc 12d ago
  Yup, the RAM was the main bottleneck. 8MB was the minimum for Win9x, 16MB and above led to a fast experience.
- nullsmack 12d ago
  I tried installing it on my 20mhz 486 IBM but the install never would finish even though the minimum specs listed 386. I always thought that was being too generous. I did use it on faster 486's at some point in school (I think 66mhz or faster?)
st_goliath 12d ago
> Win95 can technically run on a 20Mhz 386DX s/technically/allegedly/ supposedly with a minimum of 4M RAM even! [1] I have a machine with twice that clock and twice that RAM that a friends parents wanted to toss out[2]. I spent the better part of a day getting Windows 3.11 and Office 4.3 to run. Playing around with it for a bit, I highly doubt that Windows 95 on minimum requirements would be anything but endlessly frustrating. I was not masochistic enough to try. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95#System_requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95#System_requirements [2] https://goliath32.com/hw/machines.html#pc386 https://goliath32.com/hw/machines.html#pc386
- geonineties 12d ago
  I ran Windows 95 on a 386SX-16 with an 80387, with 5MB of ram for a year as my main machine. It ran about as well as 3.1 did. The only real drawback was the disk space required for 95 over 3.1 + DOS.
cgearhart 12d ago
Back in the mid 90’s I got it to “run” on a 386, but it was miserable. It was basically wondering if it was hung or just really slow on every command or mouse click.
- nottorp 12d ago
  Yes. I remember one of the MS guys saying the goal for win 95 was win32s equivalent performance on a 386 with 4 Mb ram. But win32s performance on that hardware was crap :)
lightedman 12d ago
We had Win95 running on a 25MHz 4MB FPRAM 286 back in high school. Poor teacher, half of first period was roughly how long it took to boot up, only for them to exit into DOS mode because the grading software and report card software was DOS-native and would hang if you tried running it under the GUI.
- vardump 12d ago
  You certainly did not, as Win95 requires 32-bit, 80386 or better. 286 was a 16-bit CPU.
  - lightedman 12d ago
    Windows 95 had a beta build for 286 systems, which is what this system 'ran.' Bet you don't even know about Windows 97.
    - Narishma 12d ago
      It did not and it wouldn't have made any sense. By the time Windows 95 came out 286 systems were obsolete. They could barely run Windows 3.
    - skissane 12d ago
      > Windows 95 had a beta build for 286 systems, which is what this system 'ran.' I think you are confused. There was an Windows 95 build 286, but despite its name it didn't run on a 286 – it was just an incrementing counter which happened to have reached that number. https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95_build_286 https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95_build_286 At some point early in Windows 95's development, Microsoft dropped the standard-mode only 286 kernel, KRNL286.EXE. They also dropped 16-bit-only standard mode from KRNL386.EXE; but KRNL386.EXE required a 386 even for standard mode. The earliest leaked Windows 95 build, build 22, still has KRNL286.EXE in it, but it is unchanged from Windows for Workgroups 3.11, and doesn't actually work – other Windows 95 components require new APIs which Microsoft added to KRNL386 but didn't bother adding to KRNL286. By the time we get to build 286, KRNL286 was long gone. https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95_build_22 https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95_build_22 In principle, you could likely patch early Windows 95 builds to run on a 286, but I don't think anyone has actually tried. At a minimum, you'd need to add the missing APIs to KRNL286.EXE Taking you at your word, I suspect what you may have actually saw was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calmira https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calmira – an open source project which gives Windows 3.x a Windows 95-style interface – or if not Calmira, other people implemented the same idea independently, e.g. the shareware Mask98 package – http://www.win3x.org/win3board/viewtopic.php?t=1262&view=min http://www.win3x.org/win3board/viewtopic.php?t=1262&view=min – however, this had nothing to do with Microsoft; Microsoft could have done something like this, but they had no commercial interest in doing so. > Bet you don't even know about Windows 97. That is just an unofficial/unlicensed third-party distro of Windows 3.11 with Calmira bundled. https://crustywindo.ws/Windows_97 https://crustywindo.ws/Windows_97 Separately, "Windows 97" was also what Microsoft once planned to call "Windows 98", but they weren't able to finish it in time to release it in 1997

Did not realize that Win95 can technically run on a 20Mhz 386DX.

by xhrpost 12d ago

Did not realize that Win95 can technically run on a 20Mhz 386DX.

Good question. I ran Slackware Linux and DOS 5.0 on mine. I think Win95 was my Pentium 100 MHz already so it sounds a bit sus, but the FAQ section of OP had items about Win95, that is where I got the idea from.

badsectoracula 12d ago

It "technically" can - i used Win95 on an AMD 386DX with 4MB of RAM back in the 90s for a little. Most of the time was spent waiting for the computer to do something while the HDD was constantly working. The Pentium MMX with 32MB i replaced it with was MUCH faster, practically everything was instant.

glitchc 12d ago
Yup, the RAM was the main bottleneck. 8MB was the minimum for Win9x, 16MB and above led to a fast experience.
nullsmack 12d ago
I tried installing it on my 20mhz 486 IBM but the install never would finish even though the minimum specs listed 386. I always thought that was being too generous. I did use it on faster 486's at some point in school (I think 66mhz or faster?)

st_goliath 12d ago

> Win95 can technically run on a 20Mhz 386DX s/technically/allegedly/ supposedly with a minimum of 4M RAM even! [1] I have a machine with twice that clock and twice that RAM that a friends parents wanted to toss out[2]. I spent the better part of a day getting Windows 3.11 and Office 4.3 to run. Playing around with it for a bit, I highly doubt that Windows 95 on minimum requirements would be anything but endlessly frustrating. I was not masochistic enough to try. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95#System_requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95#System_requirements [2] https://goliath32.com/hw/machines.html#pc386 https://goliath32.com/hw/machines.html#pc386

geonineties 12d ago
I ran Windows 95 on a 386SX-16 with an 80387, with 5MB of ram for a year as my main machine. It ran about as well as 3.1 did. The only real drawback was the disk space required for 95 over 3.1 + DOS.

cgearhart 12d ago

Back in the mid 90’s I got it to “run” on a 386, but it was miserable. It was basically wondering if it was hung or just really slow on every command or mouse click.

nottorp 12d ago
Yes. I remember one of the MS guys saying the goal for win 95 was win32s equivalent performance on a 386 with 4 Mb ram. But win32s performance on that hardware was crap :)

lightedman 12d ago

We had Win95 running on a 25MHz 4MB FPRAM 286 back in high school. Poor teacher, half of first period was roughly how long it took to boot up, only for them to exit into DOS mode because the grading software and report card software was DOS-native and would hang if you tried running it under the GUI.

vardump 12d ago
You certainly did not, as Win95 requires 32-bit, 80386 or better. 286 was a 16-bit CPU.
- lightedman 12d ago
  Windows 95 had a beta build for 286 systems, which is what this system 'ran.' Bet you don't even know about Windows 97.
  - Narishma 12d ago
    It did not and it wouldn't have made any sense. By the time Windows 95 came out 286 systems were obsolete. They could barely run Windows 3.
  - skissane 12d ago
    > Windows 95 had a beta build for 286 systems, which is what this system 'ran.' I think you are confused. There was an Windows 95 build 286, but despite its name it didn't run on a 286 – it was just an incrementing counter which happened to have reached that number. https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95_build_286 https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95_build_286 At some point early in Windows 95's development, Microsoft dropped the standard-mode only 286 kernel, KRNL286.EXE. They also dropped 16-bit-only standard mode from KRNL386.EXE; but KRNL386.EXE required a 386 even for standard mode. The earliest leaked Windows 95 build, build 22, still has KRNL286.EXE in it, but it is unchanged from Windows for Workgroups 3.11, and doesn't actually work – other Windows 95 components require new APIs which Microsoft added to KRNL386 but didn't bother adding to KRNL286. By the time we get to build 286, KRNL286 was long gone. https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95_build_22 https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95_build_22 In principle, you could likely patch early Windows 95 builds to run on a 286, but I don't think anyone has actually tried. At a minimum, you'd need to add the missing APIs to KRNL286.EXE Taking you at your word, I suspect what you may have actually saw was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calmira https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calmira – an open source project which gives Windows 3.x a Windows 95-style interface – or if not Calmira, other people implemented the same idea independently, e.g. the shareware Mask98 package – http://www.win3x.org/win3board/viewtopic.php?t=1262&view=min http://www.win3x.org/win3board/viewtopic.php?t=1262&view=min – however, this had nothing to do with Microsoft; Microsoft could have done something like this, but they had no commercial interest in doing so. > Bet you don't even know about Windows 97. That is just an unofficial/unlicensed third-party distro of Windows 3.11 with Calmira bundled. https://crustywindo.ws/Windows_97 https://crustywindo.ws/Windows_97 Separately, "Windows 97" was also what Microsoft once planned to call "Windows 98", but they weren't able to finish it in time to release it in 1997