4 ms·

Me too, but I was able to do it around 1995-1996 :) Also remember Windows95 can boot with 4MB of RAM, and was decent with 12MB.

adrian_b 8mo ago
Windows95 was decent even with 8 MB, on a 66 MHz or 100 MHz 486 CPU. With either 4 MB or only a 386 CPU, it was definitely crippled, making an upgrade not worthwhile.
- actionfromafar 8mo ago
  Windows 95 on a 386 CPU with enough RAM was alright. Not fast but very useable. https://youtu.be/Pw2610paPYM?t=72 https://youtu.be/Pw2610paPYM?t=72 But most 386 didn't have 8+ megabytes, and some 386 had a 286 like data bus, making it even slower. (386SX)
  - badc0ffee 8mo ago
    On paper a 386sx is slower than a 386dx, and certainly is in terms of RAM access. But in practice you'd need some expensive hardware to fully take advantage of that speed, like EISA cards and a motherboard that supported them (or, MCA cards on one of the higher end IBM PS/2 models). The typical ISA cards of the era were limited to 8 MHz and 16 bits no matter what processor or motherboard you used. The 386dx could also use a full 32-bit address space, whereas the 386sx had 24 address lines like the 286. But again, having more than 16 MB would have been expensive at the time.
  - lproven 8mo ago
    > Windows 95 on a 386 CPU with enough RAM was alright. I benchmarked it for PC Pro Magazine when it came out. We had to borrow a 4MB 386SX from a friend of the editor's, as we had nothing that low-end left in the labs. In our standard benchmarks, which used MS Word, MS Excel, PowerPoint, Illustrator, Photoshop, WinZip, and a few other real apps, Win95 1.0, not 95A or OSR2, was measurable faster than Windows for Workgroups 3.11 on MS-DOS 6.22, hand-optimised. When it needed the RAM, 95 could shrink the disk cache to essentially nothing. (Maybe 4 kB or something.) Win3 could not do that. It was SLOW but under heavy load it was quicker than Win3 on the lowest-end supported hardware. Under light load, Win3 was quicker, but Win95 scaled down very impressively indeed.

adrian_b 8mo ago

Windows95 was decent even with 8 MB, on a 66 MHz or 100 MHz 486 CPU. With either 4 MB or only a 386 CPU, it was definitely crippled, making an upgrade not worthwhile.

actionfromafar 8mo ago
Windows 95 on a 386 CPU with enough RAM was alright. Not fast but very useable. https://youtu.be/Pw2610paPYM?t=72 https://youtu.be/Pw2610paPYM?t=72 But most 386 didn't have 8+ megabytes, and some 386 had a 286 like data bus, making it even slower. (386SX)
- badc0ffee 8mo ago
  On paper a 386sx is slower than a 386dx, and certainly is in terms of RAM access. But in practice you'd need some expensive hardware to fully take advantage of that speed, like EISA cards and a motherboard that supported them (or, MCA cards on one of the higher end IBM PS/2 models). The typical ISA cards of the era were limited to 8 MHz and 16 bits no matter what processor or motherboard you used. The 386dx could also use a full 32-bit address space, whereas the 386sx had 24 address lines like the 286. But again, having more than 16 MB would have been expensive at the time.
- lproven 8mo ago
  > Windows 95 on a 386 CPU with enough RAM was alright. I benchmarked it for PC Pro Magazine when it came out. We had to borrow a 4MB 386SX from a friend of the editor's, as we had nothing that low-end left in the labs. In our standard benchmarks, which used MS Word, MS Excel, PowerPoint, Illustrator, Photoshop, WinZip, and a few other real apps, Win95 1.0, not 95A or OSR2, was measurable faster than Windows for Workgroups 3.11 on MS-DOS 6.22, hand-optimised. When it needed the RAM, 95 could shrink the disk cache to essentially nothing. (Maybe 4 kB or something.) Win3 could not do that. It was SLOW but under heavy load it was quicker than Win3 on the lowest-end supported hardware. Under light load, Win3 was quicker, but Win95 scaled down very impressively indeed.