Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by santoshalper 1433 days ago
I think the 486/66 would probably have been ok for Windows 95, but the 4MB of ram would have been rough.
3 comments

I ran Windows NT 4.0 on a DX2/66 -- with 32GB of RAM.

The RAM cost about $750 from a Silicon Valley importer. 1994. That was during a crisis in worldwide memory availability, caused at least in part by a fire that destroyed the only factory that made a chemical required by the semiconductor industry.

Our current supply chain crisis seems worse, but it isn't the first.

> 32GB of RAM

It’s funny how our fingers have lost the ability to type “MB of RAM.”

:-)

Megabytes. Yes. Oops.

I just bought some old Xeon CPUs on eBay that have 32 MB of cache. They cost rather less than $750.

so we didn't learn anything. Sad to know.
I can tell you from first hand experience it was. 4mb was the minimum requirements and I can tell you, that legally MS was correct in that statement. When I eventually did get a copy of Win95 plus Update (SP1 basicly), I ran it for exactly 1 week before I scraped together enough money to purchase another 8mb of RAM from Fry's. After that it was fine, at least until it blew itself up.
For Win95, it was tolerable. Win98 with IE integration everywhere (remember "Active Desktop"?) was much more of a memory hog tho.