Grzyb wrote on 2020-09-03, 17:53:

Of course. BTW, it may be a good idea to add more RAM. Late 486 boards with PCI usually have 4 x 72-pin SIMM sockets, so even 12 […]
Show full quote

jasa1063 wrote on 2020-09-03, 17:14:

The whole point of putting my 486 system together was pure nostalgia. I had one back in the day with a Pentium Overdrive 83MHz. Just reliving some fond memories. I guess it boils down to what an individual wants and for what purpose. To each his own.

Of course.
BTW, it may be a good idea to add more RAM.
Late 486 boards with PCI usually have 4 x 72-pin SIMM sockets, so even 128 MB seems possible - though probably with only 64 MB cachable.
With 64 MB of RAM Windows 98SE might run pretty well even on a 486, and there are even good chances for Windows NT.

I already have some ram, but I am going to hold off putting it in until I upgrade the motherboard cache to 512K, which my board supports. That way 128MB will be cacheable.

The 1 MB L2 cache of my 486 covers full 256 MB in write through mode.

On my DX4/100 I used NT4 as much as possible for desktop, Internet and the games that worked. 95 and then 98 with the 95 shell when I had to and DOS for most of my gaming. They all ran fine with 8mb of ram just don't install Active Desktop. I couldn't ever stand 95 but if you can then have fun.

86Box is a great way to see how hardware would perform between windows versions. You definitely don't want 98 on the 486, 95 is already hitting the lower limit of usability.

DosFreak wrote on 2020-09-03, 21:20:

NT4

8mb of ram

Must be some mistake, once I saw NT4 "running" with 16 MB, and it was one of the most painful experiences in my life.
I would say the reasonable minium is 64 MB.

With 8 MB... well, maybe the original release of Windows 95 would be acceptable, but not for running anything bigger than Minesweeper.

Grzyb wrote on 2020-09-03, 22:06:

Must be some mistake, once I saw NT4 "running" with 16 MB, and it was one of the most painful experiences in my life. I would sa […]
Show full quote

DosFreak wrote on 2020-09-03, 21:20:

NT4

8mb of ram

Must be some mistake, once I saw NT4 "running" with 16 MB, and it was one of the most painful experiences in my life.
I would say the reasonable minium is 64 MB.

With 8 MB... well, maybe the original release of Windows 95 would be acceptable, but not for running anything bigger than Minesweeper.

Windows 95 technically *ran* with 4MB already, but only because it had to. Before the Win95 release, PCs were not seldomly fitted with 1/2/4MB only.
In fact, many venerable 386/486 laptops and luggables (portables) that I came across in the 90s (with non-upgradeable memory) were tortured with Win95.. Just because Win95 was considered a must-have. It was such a sad experience, really, that made me feel sorry. 😢
The HDDs crackled and stuttered, as if the PCs were desperately drying to breathe, but were drowning nevertheless.

The programs that ran acceptable on a low-end Win95 system were mainly Windows 3.x and early Windows NT 3.x titles (via Win32s), if memory serves.

These usually were very resource friendly and made by one-man companies and hobbyists.
You know, shovelware. Freeware, Shareware, Public Domain.. Not MS Office or Lotus Organizer. 😉

Edit: That's an old story perhaps, but my father ran Win95 Retail/RTM on a 386DX-40, that he upgraded to 16MB of RAM.
And had two "big" 120MB/250MB IDE HDDs.
One for OS/programs, one for data..

Edit: I ran Win98SE on a Pentium 75 or 133 with 24MB of RAM for a while (in 2001?).
It wasn't awesome by any means, but I remember acceptably surfing the WWW with it over dial-up (IE5.5; snoopy/peanuts site?) and playing Need for Speed II SE via software rendering.. Not sure if this helpful, though.
My perception perhaps was not the same as that of a typical gamer, you know.. 😅

Grzyb wrote on 2020-09-03, 22:06:

Must be some mistake, once I saw NT4 "running" with 16 MB, and it was one of the most painful experiences in my life. I would sa […]
Show full quote

DosFreak wrote on 2020-09-03, 21:20:

NT4

8mb of ram

Must be some mistake, once I saw NT4 "running" with 16 MB, and it was one of the most painful experiences in my life.
I would say the reasonable minium is 64 MB.

With 8 MB... well, maybe the original release of Windows 95 would be acceptable, but not for running anything bigger than Minesweeper.

You're right, reviewing some old docs looks like I was running 12MB. I was using the 486 from 1995-1998. If you use the software that was released at the time and not the bloated later software then it's fine.

jasa1063 wrote on 2020-09-03, 17:14:

The whole point of putting my 486 system together was pure nostalgia. I had one back in the day with a Pentium Overdrive 83MHz. Just reliving some fond memories. I guess it boils down to what an individual wants and for what purpose. To each his own.

486's especially are nostalgia boxes, they are too fast for early dos and too slow for late dos games, better and cheaper options exist if its just about games.
A 486 is about reliving part of your history, so go with whatever feels right for you.

In my case I held onto our 486/66 (it was our very first pc) and Win3.11 felt right when getting it running again even though it ran that OS for less then 12 months then ran Win95 for 4 years till we next upgraded.
So really my nostalgia should be Win95 on that box but its a sentimental not logical thing .

PS
After we got a 2nd PC the 486 got NT4 installed, by this time it had 64MB ram. Slow but stable is how I'd describe it. which was fine in its new role as web browser and typing up homework.
Win95 opened up programs quicker but blue screened more often, it did have the option to boot into native dos, a must for playing games

jasa1063 wrote on 2020-09-02, 01:46:

I was trying out both Windows 95 OSR2.5 and Windows 98 SE on my latest 486 build with a Pentium Overdrive 83Mhz and 32MB of ram on a 486 PCI motherboard with a SIS 496 chipset. I ended up using Windows 95 OSR2.5 as it ran smoother than Windows 98 SE. I was just curious if anyone else had a different experience on this type of configuration.

This aligns with my findings too. I have a ThinkPad with a P100 and 48M of RAM and Win98SE was usable, but only barely, even after replacing the HDD with CF. If I was doing a couple things, it was fine, but anything more, and it became painful.

I replaced the Socket 2 motherboard I was using with a Lucky Star LS486E Rev C1 Socket 3 motherboard with 256K cache. The Pentium Overdrive just under performed on the Socket 2 motherboard. Topbench v3.8 scored 205 and Norton SI v8.0 scored 197. The L1 cache would only operate in Write Through mode. The Socket 3 motherboard has made all the difference. The L1 cache is now operating in Write Back mode, Topbench v3.8 now scores 235 and Norton SI v8.0 scores 264. Windows 95 OSR2.5 with 32MB of ram runs noticeably faster as well.

I decided to pull the trigger on 128MB for my LS486E board, but with a few software config changes. I left only 32MB cacheable with 7 tags bits for the L2 cache setup in the BIOS. When running DOS I only have 32MB available with HIMEMX.EXE from FreeDOS with /MAX=32768 parameter. That keeps that entire memory area cached. I primarily use DOS on this computer anyway and it seemed to be a good compromise between having enough memory to run Windows 9x better and keeping the performance for DOS untouched from my previous configuration of only 32MB.

The main advantage of win95B/C is the fat32 support. Most 486 max at 500mb HDD, so theres no reason to use anything past win95/win95A. Ideally dos 5-6.22 and win 3.0-3.11wfw, but win95 is possible.

Without USB ports, there's really no reason to use win98.

Disruptor wrote on 2020-09-03, 20:44:

The 1 MB L2 cache of my 486 covers full 256 MB in write through mode.

more cache than many s7 boards, impressive.

Grzyb wrote on 2020-09-03, 22:06:

With 8 MB... well, maybe the original release of Windows 95 would be acceptable, but not for running anything bigger than Minesweeper.

well, i had running windows 95 osr2.5 on my 386 laptop (sx25, 4mb)
it was remarcably fast for the hardware, as long as you don't open any program
the laptop uses an ide 44 cable that i can't find so i can't boot it anymore

I have a Compact Flash to IDE adapter and have two 8GB Compact Flash disks I use with my LS486E board. One has Windows 95 OSR2.5 and the other Windows 98 SE. Windows 95 is noticeably faster than Windows 98 even with the 128MB upgrade.

Usually for 486 I use Windows 3.11 FWG and Windows NT 3.51 and OS/2 Warp 3 and maybe original Windows 95. Usually all Windows 9x stuff goes to faster Pentium machines.