OT: Was: Re: LINUX on Windows 98

[Jimmy Montague]

It isn't just the hardware. I remember in 1995 I walked into a cubicle
that was 15 feet square. A single bookshelf, at eye-level, went all the
way around the cube. It was packed from end to end with a set of
matching binders that contained -- something. I said to the guy inside:
"What the hell is all that stuff?" He answered: "It's the documentation
for Oracle."

On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:26 -0400, Rashkae wrote:
> Mark Haney wrote:
> > Jimmy Montague wrote:
> >> As I recall, Karl, Win 95 will run in 8 megs of RAM -- but you won't
> >> like it. I had it in a 16 mb, DX-2/66 and it was reasonably fast, but my
> >> girlfriend installed it in 8 mb and it was nightmarishly slow.
> >>
> >> Jimmy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > Win95 did run in 8MB RAM.  I first ran 95 on a system with only 8.  I 
> > very quickly (and expensively -- an 8MB SIMM was $60) upgraded to that. 
> >   Wasn't great, but better than nothing at the time.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Win95 first edition worked beautifully in 4mb of ram.   As long as you
> had at least a 486 and 4mb, Win95 was actually faster and multi-tasked
> much more smoothly than Win 3.11 on the same workload... (Wow, OS
> upgrades that improved performance, those were really the golden days)
> 
> 'Course, it didn't take long for all the third party drivers and add-on
> utilities to start sucking all that extra available memory space into a
> black hole that keeps getting bigger to this day.
>