30MB ram usage

>30MB ram usage
daily reminder than ganno/loonix is bloated trash

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iqL1BLzn3qc
youtube.com/watch?v=lkJR7gbbXEs
youtube.com/watch?v=4sH6lopuzdc
youtube.com/watch?v=KlOi-L-N0X4
bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=https://bellard.org/jslinux/win2k.cfg&mem=192&graphic=1&w=1024&h=768
yeokhengmeng.com/2018/01/make-the-486-great-again/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I've used Windows so damn much that the desktop Linux switch isn't worth it. NAS, routers, modems, all that jazz, sure. But the thing I pilot? I'll take Windows any day.

Thread theme
youtube.com/watch?v=iqL1BLzn3qc

This is how I know you're underage desu
For you kids too old to remember Windows 95, it was more or less the same bloated disappointment as Vista ten years later.

Now install a good OS like NT

>$4.44 with free shipping
daily reminder than m.2 nvm is an overpriced scam

>4:38AM in Win95

You have no idea what you just did to me.

Those aren't the same as m.2

Windows 95 was my first OS. How old I am, guess!

It's always either an underage or someone who hasn't used it since they were a kid and thus have fuzzy selective memory that blocks out how shit it was.

I just set 95 up on a system that originally shipped with it and it's fucking awful, I wish it had good NT4 drivers.

youtube.com/watch?v=lkJR7gbbXEs

...

I remember dude, how many times the background went all blocky and shit. After some time, it stopped working. But the clipart was amazing, and I had a color printer at the time. I particularly remember an old guy clipart, but have been too lazy to find it.

>back when most people had 32mb of ram and 64mb was considered a shitload

If you compare how much ram people had then, and the cost of ram then to now (I think 32mb of ram then was around $400, maybe more), windows 95 was way more bloated than anything today.

Actual thread theme
youtube.com/watch?v=4sH6lopuzdc

Taking a wild guess on a 90s kid of some sort

Some salesperson managed to convince my parents to "upgrade" from 3.11 to 95 and I hated it, but they wouldn't switch back.
Ran like shit on our 486.

95 was trash, 98 is the chad choice

ME is best, but only with VxD drivers.

xp sp2 was probably the peak for windows. Its a shame it sucked so much on release, but once it got patched it was really really good

This is now a BeOS thread.
youtube.com/watch?v=KlOi-L-N0X4

I'm 12 years old and what is this

It seems like desktop computing as a whole peaked in the last days of XP.

Win2000 virtual machine in your browser
bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=https://bellard.org/jslinux/win2k.cfg&mem=192&graphic=1&w=1024&h=768

>30MB usage of ram
>Windows 95

Bloated as fuck. 95 could run on 8 meg systems.

With the right hardware, Windows 95 is stable and amazing for the time.

The problem is that it was made during the biggest hardware booms in the industry.
you had FIVE CPU manufacturers.
Intel AMD Cyrix IBM VIA.
You had like 25 different video card manufacturers. ATI, Matrox, S3, Oak, Tseng Labs, Trident, etc etc.
There was like over 60 different motherboard manufacturing companies too.

Getting compatibility right was a challenge until 98.

>Some salesperson managed to convince my parents to "upgrade" from 3.11 to 95 and I hated it, but they wouldn't switch back.
>Ran like shit on our 486.

My 486 still runs Windows 95 like a champ.

>486
You were supposed to upgrade to a Pentium and have at the very least 16MB of RAM. Windows 95 is great, you just need a decent computer.

With virtual memory, yea.
If you turned it off, you needed 32-64.

Mine is turned off on mine because I have a PATA SSD (disk on module). It's hard to find a working PATA hard drive, but PATA SSDs are dirt cheap, fast, super small, and in larger capacities.

I kinda miss the hard drive noises though.
Thinking of making a circuit that plays back random HDD noises when data is accessed.

It was usable, but not as snappy as 3.11

At least our 486 was fast (100MHz) I've used 95 on a 33MHz 486 and it didn't even run the clock in real time when you tried to play some Solitaire.

t. has no idea how much a Pentium or 16MB RAM cost back then

Win95 was designed to "run" on 386 and actually work well on 486 hardware with 8MB RAM
I believe it even works with 4MB, but you really can't run any programs

HOLY SHIT MY 486 CAN PLAY VIDEO!!!11
>plays same music video 9001 times

>Cyrix IBM
It's the same. Cyrix was in charge for development and IBM manufactured and packaged dies.
>VIA
Nein, they bought Cyrix and IDT and it was later.
Anyway, CPUs weren't really different, anything apart from Intel had weak FPUs and MMX was the standart, not 3DNow or Cyrix extensions.

95 is how many times it will crash an hour.

>100mhz 486
>fast
My 486 has a 133mhz Am5x86 and a Tseng Labs ET4000 VLB video card with 2 MB of interlaced memory.

Win95 is super fast and stable.

could you elaborate why exactly this post was appropriate for this thread?

>and actually work well on 486 hardware
No, I saw it running on plenty of 486 machines, and unless you had the bare minimum install running only DOS or very lightweight software, and one at a time, it was extremely painful to use, only in some of the fastest 486 it was actually usable if you had enough RAM.

Anyway, you didn't have to use it on the year of release, you are not supposed to unless you are a tech illiterate. By the time the OS was mature it wasn't so expensive.

586 is a different story

Nah, IBM made some of their own cpus.
Blue Lightning, for example. A weird 486/386 hybrid CPU.

I actually have one. It's a neat beast, and it runs Windows 95 rather well.

>comparing current Linux to 23 year old Windows
Now go install SLS or whatever other ancient Linux you can find a download of and tell me how much RAM that uses. Or get Tomsrtbt and run it off a floppy.

I've got a 33 MHz 486 with 64 MB RAM, and *Win98* is usable on it. It takes a bit to boot up, but once it's going it isn't that terrible.

>have 386 DX with 25MHz
>get a free 486 some time later

>OH BOI, TEH MULTIMEDIA
>wonder why there's no big speed leap
>mfw
>learn about prozessors and that it's a 486SX with 33MHz
>mfw again

>586 is a different story
It's all socket 3 bro.
In fact, it will fit in socket 1 and 2 with a new voltage regulator, and using the 2x multiplier is interpreted as 4x on it, so it works great.

INTEL'D (very early edition)

What fucked you the hardest is not the clock.
The SX line of processors use an external 16bit bus that basically halved the CPU speed.

I know, that's what made me upset the most but ah well, it was a PC for free and still fun.

Honestly, Windows 3.11 with program manager was a really good desktop. It did what it was designed to, very, very well. Most everyone here could pick it up and run it with no hassle now. 90% of the good windows concepts stem directly from it.

95 added the Start menu and taskbar and that was about it really.

Microsoft have spent the last 20 years somehow being unhappy with that success.

>tfw "486" still causes a light tingly autismo feel in my brain

Pentium and everything after that never got engraved in my brain as "powerful cpu" as much as the 80486 did.

Atleast your had no hw backdoors as part of that jewish package

>64 MB RAM
That helps a lot, it is an insane unusual amount of RAM for a 486
The socket is irrelevant, so you are saying using a socket 7 k5 is the same as using a Pentium MMX or a K6-2? I sure hope not, the difference is abismal.

>hey, look, modern PCs have more resources
>LET'S USE ALL OF THEM

Why do OSs do this? Can Windows 10 really do anything that Windows 95 couldn't?

>Can Windows 10 really do anything that Windows 95 couldn't?
look, wasting resources is idiotic but come one. no need for hyperboles

>Can Windows 10 really do anything that Windows 95 couldn't?
Yes, it spies on you, it has neat 'woosh' effects, and the latest version of the same software that does the same than 20 years ago (but looks """""""""""""prettier""""""""""""""")

>it is an insane unusual amount of RAM for a 486
Yes it is, and I only have that much in it because of RAM sticks taken from broken machines.

It also has a 400 GB HDD because that's what I had lying around and because OnTrack let me get around the 528 MB BIOS limit and use it, as well as use and boot from CDs on a BIOS that hadn't even heard of a CD drive.

I'd be deluded to say Windows 95 didn't introduce some fantastic concepts and innovations that outweighed its detriments early on, the start menu/taskbar model and sane, curiously Macintosh-esque file management were breaths of fresh air. But then NT got most of the good parts, and the only justification to continue using 9x was compatibility.
>Windows 95 is stable and amazing for the time.
The only person who says this is either a nostalgic idiot pulling the wool over his eyes or someone who's never used anything else from the same period. 9x was inherently unstable, because it allowed poorly written software to walk all over it in ways that its truly modern contemporaries like NT, BeOS, NeXTSTEP and the various x86-compatible SysVs, BSDs and GNU/Linux distributions did not. It has nothing to do with 100%-compatible x86 offerings from AMD, Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, UMC, et al. or video controller vendors who had little issue producing stable drivers for other operating systems.
Just the 386SX, 486SX chips were fully 32-bit but lacked a floating-point unit which didn't matter for a lot of tasks anyway.
I never liked 3.x that much either, mostly due to its interface that felt very bulky after spending some time switching between it and System 7.

It can run more modern software that has more features, and work with more complex modern hardware.

It's also way better in terms of security. We bitch about a CPU bug that allows a roundabout way of peeking at kernel data one bit at a time. Win9x didn't block access to that stuff in the first place. The entire kernel was mapped *writable* in each process's address space. So any program you're running could mess with the hardware directly or modify any kernel data it wanted. Worse still, the kernel was at address 0 -- this is where null-pointer bugs make programs try to read or write. So instead of crashing the program and breaking to a debugger if you're a dev, this very common type of bug caused random corruption to the kernel and caused random bluescreens later. This made Win9x very painful to program on.

>I'd be deluded to say Windows 95 didn't introduce some fantastic concepts and innovations that outweighed its detriments early on, the start menu/taskbar model and sane, curiously Macintosh-esque file management were breaths of fresh air.
It was the last version of Windows that people lined up to buy on day one, as an upgrade for their existing PCs. XP was hyped, but not nearly as much or as successfully.

>But then NT got most of the good parts, and the only justification to continue using 9x was compatibility.
Also price. NT was fucking expensive since it was aimed at companies.

That's not wrong, and I was speaking from a purely technical perspective. But at the same time, it doesn't seem like a massive difference to me. ~$200 vs ~$300 in an era where $2,000 systems were considered mid-range.

...

If you already had a Windows license it was $99.99 for the upgrade edition. The downside is if you wanted to clean install you had to show it one of the Win3.1 install floppies to prove to it that you were eligible for the upgrade edition.

you can run fully funcitoning fully featured linux desktops with zero lag on 8MB of ram

>xp sp2

That's the last best, not even 7 tops it. But xp is shit before SP1 tho.

sp3 was the last best, added a bunch of support for stuff

Hey guys I have a working Packard Bell Platinum for sale. Anyone wanna buy a nice collector's item PC? It's a Packard Bell Mediablaster with a 350Mhz Pentium 2.

>added a bunch of support for stuff
Really ? But i never had the chance to touch sp3 because the machines i used were all peaked updated on sp2 then proceeded to vista.

Can I sell my 94-99 PCs for big bucks? or do I have to wait 10 more years till the 87s PCs become older than ATARI

yeokhengmeng.com/2018/01/make-the-486-great-again/

Install Gentoo

You're never going to get rich quick.

Why is this OS so aesthetic?

It's very simplistic, but not retard simplistic.

...

Functionality over form is its own brand of aesthetic, imo.

Many of its apps still work in Win10 x64 if you put the right mix of old NT DLLs in with them.

What functionality though?
>clunky alt-tab only switching
>no window list
>minimized windows become desktop icons
>double click required to close a window
>Program Manager
Windows 95 / NT 4 was better than the 3.1 GUI by far.

shouldn't this be in "nostalgia"
that is xp or whatever
the nothing OS .. it's the same now, but it's actually deteriorated

>Windows 95 / NT 4 was better than the 3.1 GUI by far.
If your going to say Windows 95 you might as well say Windows 98 as the extra taskbar buttons are a nice addition in 98

By the way, you can have those in win95 too if you install full IE4 with the desktop update

Pajeet, leave.