retardware wrote:I have a similar problem.
On my retro 486 Win98SE first complained that it wants at least 16MB RAM to install.
Then, after putti […]
Show full quote
I have a similar problem.
On my retro 486 Win98SE first complained that it wants at least 16MB RAM to install.
Then, after putting in 16MB, it complained it wants at least a 66MHz processor.
That sucks... I think I have sometimes heard people talk about a "Wintel cartel" extorting people to buy unneeded hardware.)
Well, a 486DX2-66 was the official minimum requirement. 😀 Makes me wish Vista/7 had some check like this, too, but with a reasonable high mimimum requirement,
so sneaky PC sellers weren't able to sell their crappy fleamarket hardware to customers as "Vista/7 Capable", which in the end ruined the reputation of these OSes (Vista's, at least).
Anyway back to Windows 98SE.. It required a math coprocessor, too. If you run setup manually with a special switch (setup /nm), though, you can bypass the check.
It' also mentioned here -> https://www.computerhope.com/win95set.htm
Some people claimed to sucessfully ran Windows 98SE on a 386 with FPU, too, but I would never like to check this myself.
I once had a Compaq Prolinea (?) 486 that was fine on WfW 3.11 and plain DOS, but slow as hell on Windows 98SE.
Edit; It wasn't just Windows that required a reasonable amount of memory in the 1990s.
OS/2 also required 8MiB of RAM, better 16MiB. On something little as 4MiB, the system would crawl due to its sheer complexity and progressiveness.
Here's an interesting video of the time, telling that 8/16MB were no luxury for these advanced OSes: https://youtu.be/-DAojx2Hgec
"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//