OMORES wrote on 2023-01-22, 20:58:

I can report that Windows 95A is working flawlessly on a Ryzen 9 configuration* […]
Show full quote

I can report that Windows 95A is working flawlessly on a Ryzen 9 configuration*

Boot time is about 7 seconds with SATA drive in DOS mode.

3 min Youtube video with Windows 95 and some benchmarks

I was able to copy the same Windows instalation on a 840MB drive and using an ISA - IDE card to boot it up on 386 SX 33 Mhz/4MB. (only in safe mode)

What was the boot time on the 386, then? 🤣

OMORES wrote on 2023-01-22, 20:58:

I was able to copy the same Windows instalation on a 840MB drive and using an ISA - IDE card to boot it up on 386 SX 33 Mhz/4MB. (only in safe mode)

I knew people in the 90s who tortured their 386/486 PCs with Windows 95 on 4MB of RAM and ~40MB HDDs.
I'm still angry about them for being so stubborn to not increase RAM to 8 or 16MB.
4MB were a reasonable baseline configuration for Windows 3.1 on a 286 PC.
Running Windows 95 on the same was just silly. But so were the 90s. 😂

I'm running Win95B on a 386sx/20 on stereoids.
It has 20 MB RAM (4 MB EMS in DOS).
It has an Adaptec 1542B with a 1 GB SCSI drive.
It has an Tseng ET4000/W32 for graphics acceleration.
It has a SB16 CSP and plays windows sounds that have been converted to 16 bit with ADPCM compression.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-01-23, 08:31:

I knew people in the 90s who tortured their 386/486 PCs with Windows 95 on 4MB of RAM and ~40MB HDDs. I'm still angry about them […]
Show full quote

OMORES wrote on 2023-01-22, 20:58:

I was able to copy the same Windows instalation on a 840MB drive and using an ISA - IDE card to boot it up on 386 SX 33 Mhz/4MB. (only in safe mode)

I knew people in the 90s who tortured their 386/486 PCs with Windows 95 on 4MB of RAM and ~40MB HDDs.
I'm still angry about them for being so stubborn to not increase RAM to 8 or 16MB.
4MB were a reasonable baseline configuration for Windows 3.1 on a 286 PC.
Running Windows 95 on the same was just silly. But so were the 90s. 😂

Hardware wasn't cheap especially RAM

H3nrik V! wrote on 2023-01-23, 06:41:

OMORES wrote on 2023-01-22, 20:58:

I can report that Windows 95A is working flawlessly on a Ryzen 9 configuration* […]
Show full quote

I can report that Windows 95A is working flawlessly on a Ryzen 9 configuration*

Boot time is about 7 seconds with SATA drive in DOS mode.

3 min Youtube video with Windows 95 and some benchmarks

I was able to copy the same Windows instalation on a 840MB drive and using an ISA - IDE card to boot it up on 386 SX 33 Mhz/4MB. (only in safe mode)

What was the boot time on the 386, then? 🤣

From my own childhood experience, i was running windows 95b on 386sx-20 with 8mb of ram. Bootup time was around 5min.

DosFreak wrote on 2023-01-23, 11:59:

Jo22 wrote on 2023-01-23, 08:31:

I knew people in the 90s who tortured their 386/486 PCs with Windows 95 on 4MB of RAM and ~40MB HDDs. I'm still angry about them […]
Show full quote

OMORES wrote on 2023-01-22, 20:58:

I was able to copy the same Windows instalation on a 840MB drive and using an ISA - IDE card to boot it up on 386 SX 33 Mhz/4MB. (only in safe mode)

I knew people in the 90s who tortured their 386/486 PCs with Windows 95 on 4MB of RAM and ~40MB HDDs.
I'm still angry about them for being so stubborn to not increase RAM to 8 or 16MB.
4MB were a reasonable baseline configuration for Windows 3.1 on a 286 PC.
Running Windows 95 on the same was just silly. But so were the 90s. 😂

Hardware wasn't cheap especially RAM

No, it wasn't. But so was the whole PC eco system.
People saved money on the wrong side, also. They had money for fast graphics cards, fast processors, fat HDDs.. And for fancy cloths etc.

But the most important part, the working memory, they didn't have money for.

Important in so far, because it's what makes a multi-user/multi-tasking OS possible:
Everything is done using RAM in some way or another. Applications use clipboard or DDE,
use virtual memory addesses, use memory for interprocess communication etc.

Windows 95 RTM runs okay on a 386 CPU if the memory is reasonably dimensioned. Say, 8 to 16 MB.
Or 24 MB or 32MB+, as it was affordable in the Pentium days near the late 90s.
That's when Windows 95 started to feel quick.
The same goes for OS/2, sadly.

Here in Germany, Vobis or Escom sold PCs with OS/2.
This was a noble/brave move as such, but there was a catch: their PCs merely had 4MB of RAM by default.
The result was, that OS/2 crawled, causing a bad reputation among the end users.
Not the professional or business users, though.

The people of Team OS/2 mentioned an 8 MB minimum RAM configuration.
Years before Windows 95 was released.

It's being mentioned in the video link :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DAojx2Hgec

Around minute 46, the speaker says that the test PC is a 386 with 16 MB of RAM.
This was reasonable (not overkill), even in 1993.
Edit: It's an 486/33, actually. But a 386DX-40 isn't that much of a difference (roughly equals an 486SX25).

Moral of the story: RAM was expensive, but also was an investment that's worth it.
The stress and time it saved was much more worth than the money it did cost.

Edit: DosFreak, I didn't mean to educate you.
By reading some of your posts in the past years, I'm well aware that you know a lot about computing.
My response was merely me thinking out loud.
I hope you don't mind.

Edit: Formatting fixed (now at home on PC).

Jo22 wrote on 2023-01-23, 08:31:

I knew people in the 90s who tortured their 386/486 PCs with Windows 95 on 4MB of RAM and ~40MB HDDs. I'm still angry about them […]
Show full quote

OMORES wrote on 2023-01-22, 20:58:

I was able to copy the same Windows instalation on a 840MB drive and using an ISA - IDE card to boot it up on 386 SX 33 Mhz/4MB. (only in safe mode)

I knew people in the 90s who tortured their 386/486 PCs with Windows 95 on 4MB of RAM and ~40MB HDDs.
I'm still angry about them for being so stubborn to not increase RAM to 8 or 16MB.
4MB were a reasonable baseline configuration for Windows 3.1 on a 286 PC.
Running Windows 95 on the same was just silly. But so were the 90s. 😂

When I bought a DX2/66 I had it installed with 8 megs, which was a little out of the ordinary back then. However, when RAM prices plummeted some time later, I upgraded with a 16 meg stick, which unfortunately didn't run with the already installed 8. Probably some single/ double sided issue. Anyways, I ran 95 on that with 16 megs

RAM was such a big thing. The biggest and unforgettable upgrade I have ever made was from 16MB RAM to 64MB SDRAM. In late 1998 and I was into Half Life with only 16MB RAM, the minimum requirements. Half life was designed with loading screens as you played. You passed a certain point - the screen would freeze with a "Loading..." message. Loading would take about 1-2 minutes on a P233/16MB/2.1GB WD. After the loading screen if you walked 10 seconds - then you realized you are walking in the wrong direction - you had to go back and wait another 2 minutes. In total 4-5 minutes loading time by opening the wrong door... With 64 MB loading times were reduced to 5 to 10 seconds - the upgrade was so huge, nothing else could match that experience for me.