Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 21st Aug 2005 14:36 UTC, submitted by AlexZOP
Thread beginning with comment 21158
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



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.