rmay635703 wrote on 2023-01-13, 02:51:
rasz_pl wrote on 2023-01-13, 01:39:
douglar wrote on 2023-01-12, 18:53:
Let me get this straight. You are essentially asking if it helps to use a Sata drive on a VLB controller for your paging file on a 386, yes?
TLDR: there is nothing that would run well on a 386 and require more than 8MB of ram. Same deal with 486 and ~12MB of ram.
There we’re definitely windows programs that ran a lot better on a 486 with 20mb of ram over 12mb
Windows 95 RTM ran better with 16 MB than with 8 MB or 4 MB (yikes!).
OS/2 needed 8 MB as a real minimum requirement, not 4 MB.
Edit: Windows for Workgroups or other network OSes (Novell Netware etc)
always needed a lot of RAM:
These systems were maintaining the internal e-mail traffic in offices.
I'm talking about the server(s) here, not the desktop PCs.
However, hardware-wise, they didn't differ that much.
In the late 80s/early 90s, a "server" was just a powerful PC in a closet designated
to the task of serving resources to other PCs in the network.
These servers also did printer spooling etc,
so that multiple people had access to the laser printer, for example.
To these systems, the CPU isn't/wasn't so much the bottleneck, but the RAM.
PS: That's the main cause of the misunderstanding here, I think:
Many people see the whole IT with the eyes of the consumer, the office user.
The professional side is totally ignored, which often makes me smile.
It's as if C64 users with their 64 KB machines saw an IBM PC/XT with 640 KB first time
start debating if its insane memory capacity is just a curiosity or if there are two more machines world wide with such a RAM specification. 🥲
Anyway, some might be surprised to find out how advanced PCs and workstation in the professional, medical or research fields already were in the 80s/early 90s! 😃
A far cry from beige boxes with 2MB RAM, 40 MB HDDs and Standard VGA (640x480 in 16c) and 14" CRTs.
Edit: To give an idea, Kodak's Photo CD supported resolutions up to 2048x3070 (BASE*16, true color). In 1992/93, maybe earlier.
And that's merely the consumer version.
The maximum resolution of the format was 4096x6144.
Again, in 1992/93. In the 386/486 days, before 586/Win 95.
Re: Graphics card for Windows 3.11 and Nt3.51 in high resolutions (1600x1200 and higher)
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//