| > 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. |