VOGONS


First post, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I came to this idea while posting in this thread: Re: Back to the 2k's! (my 2nd post).

Of course we're all familiar with the official minimum system requirements for the various MS Windows versions, but obviously we all have our own requirements 😉

So now I've gotten curious as to what hardware you typically use when using any particular version of Windows (or DOS 😉).

Heres my personal list:

DOS and Windows 3x (any version)
Not much to say, DOS can run on basically anything!
For Windows 3x I'd prefer using a 386 at the least, with perhaps 16MB ram or so, though 8MB should be fine also I guess.
I'm not too familiar with 3x apart from years 'n years back.

Windows 95
When using 95 I prefer to use one of the later oem ones (95B or 95C).
My preferred minimum system requirements would be:
*66Mhz 486, though I'd prefer to use at least a DX4-100.
Any Pentium should be enough 😜
*32MB ram, though up to 64MB would be preferred to prevent harddrive trashing, and I got the memory available anyway....so why not?
95 could probably get away with 16mb, but as ram is kinda easy to come by these days, theres hardly any reason to go for less then 32MB me thinks
*1GB harddrive, this leaves plenty of room for whatever you might want to add. 95 has a very small footprint and, even though I can't remember exactly how much, I remember it taking up only a very small portion of the 1GB harddrive I used.

98SE
I've used 98FE a couple times and was never happy with it.
98SE I use when I feel like I probably can't get away with using ME. I prefer to have a fast system then a slower one.
*Minimum cpu:Probably anything over a 100Mhz Pentium class, though I'd be tempted to use it on a 486 DX4 as well.
*64MB ram. Many 97-era boards can't cache more then 64MB ram, so I set 64MB as my preferred target. Anything that can cache more will probably receive ME instead.
*4GB harddrive. The minimum harddrive isn't exact science, it's more that on a 98SE rig, I want some extra room so I can install software. I prefer installing 98SE on a separate partition for ease of data recovery if the OS would ever go belly up! 😜
Minimum partition size for 98SE:Probably 1GB or so. I'll use 1.5GB just to be safe
*Graphics card:Anything 4MB or more, but this is more a taste issue, depending on what the system is going to be used for.

ME
As I'm most accustomed to ME, this is my preferred 9x OS

*Minimum cpu:400Mhz of any class. This includes the K6-2 family and the Celeron/P2. cpu isn't really a hard limit, my decision to go with ME has mostly to do with how much memory the system will be receiving.
*Minimum ram:128MB, though my personal minimum would be 192MB.
ME will fly with 256MB and 512MB is ok, if you have the ram available 😉
*Harddrive:Minimum 10GB or so. I've installed ME on 6.4GB harddrives before and even though it will work, ME has a much bigger footprint then 98SE. Installing ME on a 1GB partition will make ME complain a lot about lack of disk space. I try to use a 2GB partition as a bare minimum, but will typically use a bit larger partition of the total drive size permits leaving enough space for games etc.
*Graphics card:I prefer to use a 16MB graphics card, but it's a matter of choice really.

2k
Even though I've used 2k with great pleasure (it worked ok for it's intended purpose back then), nowdays I prefer using XP and ME over 2k any day of the week.
Still I'll list my preferred min specs for completeness sake 😜
*Minimum a Pentium 2 or Pentium Pro. 2k will run on a Socket 7 but I think that's kinda a waste. My preferred minimum speed for 2k would be more in the area of a 500Mhz Katmai or Athlon class cpu.
800+Mhz would be good to use I think, and preferably one of the top-of-the-line 800Mhz cpu's (so no Celeron, and certainly not a VIA!).
*RAM: For 2k to run a bit speedy, I'd prefer to use 256MB at the least. 512MB seems like a better number
*Harddrive:As 2k always seemed slow to load for me, I prefer to use a fast harddrive for it's size (so a later generation 10GB harddrive is preferred over any 1st generation 10GB harddrives).

As shown below, I prefer to use either ME or XP over 2k, though 2k isn't completely out of my mind yet 😉

XP
My preferred OS for anything that meets my minimum system requirements.
I have 2 different sets of minimum requirements for XP.
The 1st is for an offline system (so no need for gigantic updates) and one for internet usage.

*CPU: I prefer to run XP on at least an 800Mhz Coppermine class cpu (for an 800Mhz Celeron I'd prefer ME).
For internet the minimum cpu for me is about the same, but I've noticed on a 1Ghz Coppermine, internet can runa little slow, but it runs 😉
For an internet rig I prefer to use an Athlon XP at the least (or perhaps a Northwood).
*RAM:My preferred minimum would be 384MB, though I personally prefer to use 512MB. I'll probably never run XP on less then 384MB, in such a case I'll pick ME.
For internet I'd go with 1GB ram at the least if I can though 2GB is better for my needs (helps when I have 30+ browser windows open...+2 other browsers with as many windows at the same time 😜 😁)
*Harddrive: XP has a much larger footprint then ME. a 10GB harddrive is what I consider to be a bare minimum, though something over 6BG will work as long as you stick with only 1 partition.
20GB's minimum is preferred for XP imo.
When the rig is supposed to be online, I prefer to use the largest harddrive I have available, the more, the better. Anything 100GB or more should be enough 😉

Well now, these are my personal minimum system requirements. What are yours? 😉

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 1 of 49, by Old Thrashbarg

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

My requirements for 95 are a Pentium and 16MB RAM, 32MB preferred. With the hard drive it isn't so much about size, but speed. A Pentium system can usually support larger drives and DMA2 transfer mode, so with Win95 and newer systems, I try to avoid anything less than a 7200RPM drive... which consequentially rules out most drives <2GB.

With 98SE, 300mhz, 128MB RAM and a 4GB HD is the minimum for me... anything less than that and I'll either upgrade the system or go with 95 OSR2 instead.

ME is a no go for me... I use the Unofficial 98SE Service Pack and the 98SE2ME package, which adds all of the useful features from ME to 98SE, while leaving out the crap. So there's nothing I could do with ME that can't be done just as well with 98SE.

For Win2k, it's more of a grey area... I'd again say ~300mhz, 128MB RAM, and a 4GB-ish HD on the low end, but there has to be some specific reason for using 2k rather than 98SE. Dual processor systems, for example. And again, if a machine will take 128MB RAM and a 4GB HD, it'll probably take more so I'll usually upgrade as far as I can. Preferred specs would be about 400mhz, 256MB RAM, and a 10GB drive.

For XP, nothing less than 512MB RAM and a 10GB drive... same general CPU specs as 2k though, ~300mhz at minimum, >400mhz preferred. I should note that I never use a stock copy of XP, all my installs are a modified lightweight version which isn't much heavier than 2K. Considering that, I tend to only use 2K in specific instances... machines that, for whatever reason, can't be upgraded to 512MB RAM, or machines where XP simply won't install at all.

Reply 2 of 49, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Thanks for your reply 😀

Old Thrashbarg wrote:

I should note that I never use a stock copy of XP, all my installs are a modified lightweight version which isn't much heavier than 2K.

I forgot to mention I usually also use a modified version of XP on most of my rigs 😉

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 3 of 49, by MatthewBrian

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Tetrium wrote:

Thanks for your reply 😀

Old Thrashbarg wrote:

I should note that I never use a stock copy of XP, all my installs are a modified lightweight version which isn't much heavier than 2K.

I forgot to mention I usually also use a modified version of XP on most of my rigs 😉

So do I. I mostly homebrewed my own version of XP. 😀

For 98SE: Intel Pentium "classic"/MMX/Pro/Pentium II, 2GB HDD, 64MB RAM. (That reflects my retro-PC setup with Pentium 166, 1.2GB HDD and 64MB RAM).

For ME: Just used it once, doesn't really prefer ME because no native DOS compatibility 😁

2000: Only used once to install a Pentium III server (using Win2000 Advanced Server). Still prefer XP, though. (Oh, and one more time trying it on my P166 with 64MB RAM: Slow as a snail! 😁)

XP: Processors starting from Pentium III, 10GB HDD, 256MB (for extremely slimmed down XP) and 512MB (for lightly slimmed down XP).

7: Processors that says "Intel Core" something. 😀

Windows 2008R2/Windows Home Server 2011: for my Intel Atom NAS and media center 😀

Reply 5 of 49, by CHiLL72

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Personally, I do not understand why anyone would use Windows ME over Windows 98SE. I've tried it a few times and had it crash unrecoverably on all occasions. It is also more resource hungry than 98SE and there is not much (if anything) that you could not do with 98SE. In my opinion, Windows ME is best forgotten.... I used 98SE until well after XP was released and was very happy with that.

Reply 6 of 49, by rfnagel

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Hehe, my general guidelines for minimum system requirements for various OS's (especially anything that has "Mickey$oft" stamped on it)?

*TWICE* of whatever that old Billy G. says 🤣!

Rich ¥Weeds¥ Nagel
http://www.richnagel.net

Reply 7 of 49, by Old Thrashbarg

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

That's actually a pretty good gauge, honestly. Take the 'recommended' configuration, double everything, and that's the bare minimum to be even remotely usable.

Reply 8 of 49, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
CHiLL72 wrote:

Personally, I do not understand why anyone would use Windows ME over Windows 98SE. I've tried it a few times and had it crash unrecoverably on all occasions. It is also more resource hungry than 98SE and there is not much (if anything) that you could not do with 98SE. In my opinion, Windows ME is best forgotten.... I used 98SE until well after XP was released and was very happy with that.

There's supposed to be newer technologies supported in ME but I found a web page once that I have since lost track of that had tricks for cobbling together bits from 95,98,SE and Me for the best of all worlds in one Win9x install. Maybe someone else here knows the site I mean?

Reply 9 of 49, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
CHiLL72 wrote:

Personally, I do not understand why anyone would use Windows ME over Windows 98SE. I've tried it a few times and had it crash unrecoverably on all occasions. It is also more resource hungry than 98SE and there is not much (if anything) that you could not do with 98SE. In my opinion, Windows ME is best forgotten.... I used 98SE until well after XP was released and was very happy with that.

True, with ME it's either that you love it, or you hate it.
ME must be tweaked, but when tweaked the right way, it runs quite stable while being of more use to me then 98SE. The thing is, I'm not THAT much into DOS gaming, so it's lacking DOS compatibility (which can actually be worked around, if you wanted so) isn't much of an issue for me.

I like ME as it has many features in common with XP. 98SE has many things missing that come with ME right out of the box. I basically use ME if I need an easy Windows non-DOS OS that runs on hardware that is too slow for XP.

Another reason for me to prefer ME over 98SE is that I simply feel more at home using ME then I do with 98SE. To me 98SE feels more like somekind of Windows 95+ or something while ME is very quick on systems that are too slow for XP.

Like I said before, you'll either love ME, or you'll hate it (I see few that are in the middle 😜) but I frown upon people who think ME is a craptastic OS, because it's not 😀

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 10 of 49, by GXL750

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Win 3.1x: A 286 and 4mb RAM
WFWG: A 486 and 8mb RAM (I would say 386 but I see no point in trying to network anything slower than a Pentium now)
Win95: A 486 and 16mb RAM
Win98: A Pentium and 32mb RAM
XP: Pentium II and 128mb RAM
Vista/7: Pentium 4, 1gb RAM, Aero capable video card

I consider ME and 2000 to both be pointless operating systems as with both, there are more widely supported versions of Windows that run better and/or have more features.

Reply 11 of 49, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

W31 - 386SX16
W95 - 486DX2-66
W98 - 486DX4-80
WME - P5-100
NT4 - 486DX4-100
W2K - 486DX4-100
WXP- PII-233
Vista - Quad Core 6GHZ with 16GB RAM
W7 - AXP2600

WinME's hatedom from the first impression and the broken system restore never went away unfortunately. I do use it, it's a nice OS if you don't mind your DOS TSRs nuked, and I never had any of the bad luck it was infamous for.

I just wish ME had the DOS support added back in, then i'd be in total bliss 😜 those pre-release hacks don't work for me.

Reply 12 of 49, by elianda

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
swaaye wrote:
Hmmmmm […]
Show full quote

Hmmmmm

Vista/7 - dual core w/ 1GB

XP - 192MB 450MHz

98 - P5-like and 64MB

95 - 486 16MB

3.x - 386 2MB

I do usually also go with swaayes 'feeling'.
I'd even say that XP runs on 256 MB + Athlon 500 MHz already OK.

As with Windows95, I have it running on a 386DX-40 and it's already at this point where user input is a bit faster than response. Ofcourse this may be fixed with some SCSI subsystem and some ISA card with 2D GUI acceleration, though this would be a special case. Most software would like to have a 486DX2/66 on W95 anyway.
As for 3.x I agree also with the 386 because of the much better 32 Bit memory management and scalability and all the feature that come with that step. Most noteworthy all the apps that require to have a bit more memory.

For NT4 I'd say a low end P5 with 32 MB, a mid range P5 (P100+ f.e.) with 64 MB is already very ok. NT4 takes about 16 MB RAM after boot (try this with 2K 😉 ).

Reply 15 of 49, by rfnagel

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Old Thrashbarg wrote:

That's actually a pretty good gauge, honestly. Take the 'recommended' configuration, double everything, and that's the bare minimum to be even remotely usable.

Agreed 100%!

sliderider wrote:

but I found a web page once that I have since lost track of that had tricks for cobbling together bits from 95,98,SE and Me for the best of all worlds in one Win9x install. Maybe someone else here knows the site I mean?

You might be refering to this -> http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-959898seme / http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/91-windows-9x … member-projects .

That's where I originally found the "Maximum Decim Native USB Windows 98SE English Drivers" ( http://www.msfn.org/board/Maximum-Decim-Nativ … ers-t43605.html ) years back, which allowed most any removable flash media to be recognized by Windows 98SE... that's how I got my digital camera, flash drive, and MP3 player working (without a hitch) with W98SE back then 😀

Rich ¥Weeds¥ Nagel
http://www.richnagel.net

Reply 16 of 49, by rfnagel

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
swaaye wrote:

I've run into a few crazies who swore that XP is ok with 64MB. Horrifying. 😁

Hehe, a few years ago I installed Windows XP Pro w/SP1 on my AMD500 (overclocked to a blazing 550MHZ <grin>) with 256MB of RAM... *ABSOLUTELY* *PAINFUL*!

Take a sledge hammer, bash all of your bodily extremities to a bloody pulp... and it would feel orgasmic compared to WXP on that AMD500 LMAO!

Rich ¥Weeds¥ Nagel
http://www.richnagel.net

Reply 17 of 49, by sgt76

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

My personal specs for each O/S:

95OSR2- Anything below 300Mhz, 32mb-128mb ram, 2gb hd, 2mb video card. Fastest system I've run with 95OSR2 for any length of time was a P233 MMX, 128mb ram (Intel 430HX- so fully cacheable), 2gb Maxtor, 2mb ATi Rage. Very smooth and responsive- much much faster than Win98.

98- The original 98FE sucks balls IMO. So I use 98SE with the unofficial SP1 and sometimes SE2ME. Though SP1 alone is good enough most of the time. 300mhz cpus run ok, but 500mhz and above and your flying! Ram - 128mb, with a big difference going up to 256mb. Anything above that, I can't really feel any tangible improvements. H/D- at least 10gb to fit my games in (5400 rpm drives also ok), video card- at least 4mb, but usually 16mb-32mb.

ME- never used it.

Win 2000- somewhat lesser requirements than XP, but I prefer XP all the same.

XP- Pentium IIIs really feel sluggish with this one, unless you have nothing better to use. Personally, I reserve this for P4 and upwards systems nowadays. Any P4 cpu, even the evil Wilamette performs well, ram is a must- at least 512mb, a minimum 20gb hard disk (though my minimum is 40gb), with 7200rpm else it feels really sluggish, and any modern video card really. My backup Athlon 7750BE rig is still running XP- this was the last XP rig I built- which I use for games that have problems on Win7- like stupid Fallout 3 and Bioshock.

Vista-never saw a need for it.

Win7- Minimum any Dual core, 2gb ram, 80gb hard disk, 128mb video card of course.

Reply 18 of 49, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
leileilol wrote:
W31 - 386SX16 W95 - 486DX2-66 W98 - 486DX4-80 WME - P5-100 NT4 - 486DX4-100 W2K - 486DX4-100 WXP- PII-233 Vista - Quad Core 6GHZ […]
Show full quote

W31 - 386SX16
W95 - 486DX2-66
W98 - 486DX4-80
WME - P5-100
NT4 - 486DX4-100
W2K - 486DX4-100
WXP- PII-233
Vista - Quad Core 6GHZ with 16GB RAM
W7 - AXP2600

LMAO!!

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 19 of 49, by Markk

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Windows 3.0 and 3.1 will run quite well even on a 286 having 1mb ram, provided that you keep the 16color vga resolution. 3.11 on the other hand, sometimes made my 386dx/40 seem slow, even when I had 16mb ram.