Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 21st Aug 2005 14:36 UTC, submitted by AlexZOP
OSNews, Generic OSes "Based on an operating system called GEOS that was popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Breadbox Ensemble is a small (a full installation weighs in at under 10 MB) and fast suite of incredibly useful programs. While small, Breadbox Ensemble has a graphical user interface that mimics the look and feel of the Windows desktop." Read more...
Thread beginning with comment 21057
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: You're missing the point ...
by on Sun 21st Aug 2005 20:13 UTC in reply to "You're missing the point ..."

Member since:

...xfce or Windows 95: you are missing the point. Neither of these environments will run speedily on a 386 or 486 computer

Either you have a short memory, or you haven't used a 486. I had no problems running Win95 on an 486 SX2 66 (yes, SX, not DX). It had 8MB RAM and 420MB harddrive (with a separate compressed partition to press more applications into).

I had no problems with speed. Word 95 and IE3 were responsive and the only problem I had was that Office/Windows took a lot of my HD space.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Member since:

Sure I've used a 486. I had a nice 486 DX 50. It had 16 MB RAM and a spatious 700 MB hard drive. The speed was acceptable, but by no means stellar with Windows 95. Heck, that was even true for Windows 3.1. I was quite fond of MS-DOS applications in those days because of that, only using Windows 3.1 for the software which required it. The only reason why I moved to OS/2, then Windows 95 (then back to OS/2) was because of the modem. Large downloads, well large for a 14.4 kbps modem, made multitasking more compelling than speed.

I did use Geoworks Ensemble somewhere in my Windows 3.1 phase, and seem to recall it having some compelling features though those features are certainly a moot point today. While refubishing computers for a charitable organisation a few years later, I decided to try Geoworks Ensemble on a 286 (IIRC, it would run on an XT). Windows 3.0 was a complete disgrace in comparison. I seem to recall it taking a couple of minutes to load Write, or some other absurdly simple word processor.

Ah well. I guess it's mostly a moot point for people who would consider a 500 MHz box as garbage, though others may disagree with you. Some people take the attitude if it ain't broke, don't fix it; and if they don't need their computer for anything beyond writing, even an XT ain't broke. Others simply have computers so low on their priority list that the time and money spent upgrading it isn't compelling. In other cases, such as schools or charitable organisations, they are stuck with what they have unless they can get donations or funding. Businesses also aren't keen about selling computers unless they can fetch a couple of hundred dollars. So Breadbox Ensemble may look appealing to cash strapped institutions who want to upgrade their office applications, and who don't have high demands.

Would I buy it? No. I don't have the benefit of volume discounts and the price is a tad steep. But I seem to recall them selling NewDeal for about $50 per seat a few years back, to educational institutions.

Reply Parent Score: 0

edwdig Member since:
2005-08-22

Either you have a short memory, or you haven't used a 486. I had no problems running Win95 on an 486 SX2 66 (yes, SX, not DX). It had 8MB RAM and 420MB harddrive (with a separate compressed partition to press more applications into).

I had no problems with speed. Word 95 and IE3 were responsive and the only problem I had was that Office/Windows took a lot of my HD space.


You're not very discrimative about calling things responsive if you think Win95 on a 486 with 8 MB of RAM is responsive.

Back in the day, I had a 286 w/1 MB running GEOS 1.2. I then got a Pentium 75 w/8 MB and Win 3.11. I set P75 up next to the 286, and was excited I could finally run Windows. That excitement lasted about 5 minutes before I realized that Windows on the Pentium was slower than GEOS on the 286.

GEOS 2.0 on the 286 was a bit slower, but was still ran faster than Win95 on the P75. I don't remember how GEOS 2.0 on the 286 vs Win3.1 on the P75 went, but I think they were roughly equal in speed. Win95 on the P75 was just horrible to use.

For the record, I don't consider Win95 usable without at least a 166mhz machine and 32MB of ram.

Reply Parent Score: 2

japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Win95 ran rather poorly in 8MB of memory. Not so great in 16MB, either. Perhaps the two of you have different standards of acceptable computing performance.

Reply Parent Score: 1