I always got by using the adage of you can never have TOO much RAM nor TOO much Storage space.

Although I understand why some peeps would say a quad core overclocked to 6GHz using Liquid Nitrogen Cooling along with 16GB of ram would make sense, I ran fine on just a 3.2GHz stock cooled with only 8GB 😜

Hmm

Windows 3.1 was fine on a 386SX with 2MB RAM unfortunately I haven't got a 386 at the moment, 286 might be fine as well although I don't have a working one of those at the moment either.

Windows 95B I use on a Pentium with 32MB RAM, a 486 does work but I prefer 95 on a Pentium probably partly because I don't really have any 486s which really is very sad.

Windows 98SE My prefered 9x OS I think although it seems to hate me these days a bit I used to me one of those 98SE users on MSFN who swore by 98SE and thought that XP was completely evil even though I had a soft spot for NT4 but then I moved to XP and 98SE has been much harder since then due to Critical Errors I think. 64MB is preferable 128MB is better.

Windows ME
Hmm probably a PII 400 or something that an a PIII 866 are actually the only installs I have made.

Windows NT4
Pentium with 32MB RAM same as 95B really. I might like a little more RAM for NT4 Terminal Server but I'm not actually sure.

Windows 2000
K6-2 350 or Pentium II around here is where I usually do it, I have had installed 2K on a cyrix 6x86 before though. For 2K I like to have at least 64MB RAM preferably 128MB

Until recently I didn't have any copy of 98FE to install it but I did have a 486DX4 75 and 16MB RAM (I think) with 98FE on it and it was pretty slow I recall, I did play Starcraft on it though even if the cursor was a bit slow to move across the screen.

Windows XP
Most of my XP installs are nlitened installs so have a smaller footprint then normal.
While I have experienced XP on 64MB RAM and it is rather painful with a default install it can be okish almost with the useless services disabled. In reality although I have used XP on a K6-2 350 with 112MB RAM I prefer at least a PIII 800 and 384MB RAM and 512MB is even better.

Server 2003
This one is a bit interesting I usually only have 2003 for domain stuff and I was fine with it on a K6-2 350 and 112MB RAM it was a little bit slow though but oddly faster then 2000 Advanced Server. I also had or rather actually still have it on a PII 400 with 192MB RAM (2003 was also felt faster then 2000 Advanced Server on here as well) the PII hasn't been used lately I really should get some decent slot 1 boards one day.

The only 2003 install I use sometimes is on a PIII 800 with 256MB RAM which works fine RAM might be a problem if it didn't just sit there as a Domain Controller.

Windows Vista
Hmm my first Vista install was on a PIII 866Mhz with 320MB RAM (Had to modify the disk to install it under the minimum RAM requirement that the setup will install with which is actually 384MB not 512MB)
I'm not sure what I would actually install vista on though at least a P4 2Ghz and 512MB RAM but even that is a bit slow. I doubt I will ever find out the best minimum since if I can run Vista I can run 7 Better.

Server 2008
I don't have any installs of this but when I needed 2008 for something P4 2Ghz with 512MB RAM worked just fine.

Windows 7 / 2008R2
The last installs I did which weren't on dual cores with 4GB RAM.
Cyrix 6x86 @233Mhz and 512MB was really really slow and a bad idea.
P4 2.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM this worked just fine however there was some issue because games just freezed for no apparent reason.

Old Thrashbarg wrote:

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.

I'd like to test a Pentium machine with at least 32MB, but with a < 7200 RPM HDD. I want to see if its performance is in any way unacceptable. I've got a 2.5" 5400 RPM HDD, and I can put W95 on to it. Please can you suggest some tests that I can run, to determine if this speed HDD is either OK, or in any way not OK. Thanks a lot.

I suppose one good way to do this is to install W95 again on to the test PC, but on a 7200 RPM HDD, and then run all tests on each HDD. Hopefully, there's a chance I can locate a 7200 RPM HDD somewhere in my junk mountain. Both types of drives are modern WD 80GB models, with 8MB of cache.

BigBodZod wrote:

I always got by using the adage of you can never have TOO much RAM nor TOO much Storage space.

Although I understand why some peeps would say a quad core overclocked to 6GHz using Liquid Nitrogen Cooling along with 16GB of ram would make sense, I ran fine on just a 3.2GHz stock cooled with only 8GB 😜

I can't understand how it would make any sense. It costs a fortune to keep replacing that liquid nitrogen when it boils off, so it makes no sense at all. And who do you know who actually NEEDS 16gb RAM in their personal system? Most people don't even need 4.

Liquid nitrogen is mainly done for competitive benchmarking, and usually only in short stints, by people who don't care if they destroy their hardware in the pursuit of higher benchmark scores. You'd have to be a masochist to run a machine on liquid nitrogen daily 😜

sliderider wrote:

BigBodZod wrote:

I always got by using the adage of you can never have TOO much RAM nor TOO much Storage space.

Although I understand why some peeps would say a quad core overclocked to 6GHz using Liquid Nitrogen Cooling along with 16GB of ram would make sense, I ran fine on just a 3.2GHz stock cooled with only 8GB 😜

I can't understand how it would make any sense. It costs a fortune to keep replacing that liquid nitrogen when it boils off, so it makes no sense at all. And who do you know who actually NEEDS 16gb RAM in their personal system? Most people don't even need 4.

sliderider, he was only joking ;D

We all know over-the-top specs are what they are, over the top 😉

I have just finished running a disk-based benchmarking test on my 5400 RPM 2.5" HDD, using Windows 95. The drive is 80GB, and it has SeaTools for DOS on it, which currently "caps" the drive's capacity to 8.2GB. For testing, I used "Sandra 99 Standard". I did a fresh install of W95, and then installed VIA's 4-in-1 service pack, version 4.25. The system used was a Soyo SY-7VBA133U mobo, with a Tualatin server CPU @ 1.4GHz, 133 FSB. The BIOS POST tells me that the HDD is operating in ATA 100 mode.

The 4 images below are taken from Sandra 99 Standard. The only way to display all of the information inside the "scroll box", was to take 4 pictures of it, and each time move the scroll bar down a bit, to capture all of the information.

Could you give us the model number of your 80GB laptop drive?

Btw, laptop drives are "cool", hehe ;D

Tetrium wrote:

Could you give us the model number of your 80GB laptop drive?

Yes, it is WD800BEVE.

Drive released somewhere in mid-2007.
I really like laptop drives. their only drawback is they tend to be slower. Unless you're comparing a 2007 laptop drive with a 2000 desktop drive 😜

I've recently bought a whole batch of 20GB laptop drives, haven't had the chance to try them out though but as far as 9x rig harddrives are concerned, I'm set for life hehe! 😁

20GB? That's interesting. What speed are they? Also, what is the manufacturer and model information please?

Tetrium wrote:

Drive released somewhere in mid-2007.
I really like laptop drives. their only drawback is they tend to be slower. Unless you're comparing a 2007 laptop drive with a 2000 desktop drive 😜

I've recently bought a whole batch of 20GB laptop drives, haven't had the chance to try them out though but as far as 9x rig harddrives are concerned, I'm set for life hehe! 😁

Try a 2.5" SCSI then.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/7469/1

Price! 😳

I have finished running a second disk-based benchmarking test on my 5400 RPM 2.5" HDD, using Windows 95. It's the same 80GB HDD as before, and again it has SeaTools for DOS on it, which currently "caps" the drive's capacity to 8.2GB. For testing, I used "Sandra 99 Standard" again. I did another fresh install of W95, and then installed Intel's chipset driver for the i430TX chipset. The system used was a socket 7 MSI MS5158 mobo, with a Pentium MMX 233 CPU. The BIOS POST tells me that the HDD is operating in LBA, UDMA 5 mode.

The 4 images below are taken from Sandra 99 Standard.

retro games 100 wrote:

Price! 😳

SCSI is ear deafening...nty 🤣

retro games 100 wrote:

Price! 😳

That review is 7 years old.

Tetrium wrote:

retro games 100 wrote:

Price! 😳

SCSI is ear deafening...nty 🤣

Really? So you think a 7k RPM IDE drive any quieter than a 7k RPM SCSI drive? They both have the same mechanical parts, just the interface is different.

sliderider wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

retro games 100 wrote:

Price! 😳

SCSI is ear deafening...nty 🤣

Really? So you think a 7k RPM IDE drive any quieter than a 7k RPM SCSI drive? They both have the same mechanical parts, just the interface is different.

Eh...that's actually a good point 🤣!

But I understood that SCSI drives were always 1 rpm notch ahead of IDE drives and thus louder

If you could share examples of quiet SCSI drives, I'm all ears! 😁

Tetrium wrote:

If you could share examples of quiet SCSI drives, I'm all ears! 😁

Hehe, good one! 😉

Tetrium wrote:

Eh...that's actually a good point lol! […]
Show full quote

sliderider wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

SCSI is ear deafening...nty 🤣

Really? So you think a 7k RPM IDE drive any quieter than a 7k RPM SCSI drive? They both have the same mechanical parts, just the interface is different.

Eh...that's actually a good point 🤣!

But I understood that SCSI drives were always 1 rpm notch ahead of IDE drives and thus louder

If you could share examples of quiet SCSI drives, I'm all ears! 😁

What do you want? Fast or quiet? ANYTHING spinning at 10k or 15k RPM is going to make noise. In light of how slow and clunky vintage IDE hard drives are, I'd rather put a SCSI drive in a vintage rig even if it is louder.