top | item 46703178 (no title) daitangio | 1 month ago 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. discuss order hn newest adrian_b|1 month 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|1 month ago Windows 95 on a 386 CPU with enough RAM was alright. Not fast but very useable.https://youtu.be/Pw2610paPYM?t=72But most 386 didn't have 8+ megabytes, and some 386 had a 286 like data bus, making it even slower. (386SX) load replies (2)
adrian_b|1 month 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|1 month ago Windows 95 on a 386 CPU with enough RAM was alright. Not fast but very useable.https://youtu.be/Pw2610paPYM?t=72But most 386 didn't have 8+ megabytes, and some 386 had a 286 like data bus, making it even slower. (386SX) load replies (2)
actionfromafar|1 month ago Windows 95 on a 386 CPU with enough RAM was alright. Not fast but very useable.https://youtu.be/Pw2610paPYM?t=72But most 386 didn't have 8+ megabytes, and some 386 had a 286 like data bus, making it even slower. (386SX) load replies (2)
adrian_b|1 month ago
With either 4 MB or only a 386 CPU, it was definitely crippled, making an upgrade not worthwhile.
actionfromafar|1 month ago
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)