OT, but info needed: RAM uprade

From: Tim Hotze <tim_at_thereviewguide.com>
Date: Wed Dec 23 06:24:43 1998

> I've no idea how Win95 _works_ with 4MB RAM, since it doesn't _work_
> with 16MB -- though with 16MB it boots within a few minutes. I took

I agree. My 486 came with 4MB RAM, which, when RAM was still
$50/mb, was beefed up to 12MB RAM. Note that that's one of
those cool father-son teaching things. Since then, the same 486
has been beefed further up to 28MB RAM... and since then, all my
computers have fallowed suit. With 28MB and a 486/66, Windows
95 ran quite nicely, for Windows 95.
> a system on which I'd loaded Win95 (P90, 16MB) and dropped it to 4MB
> (I'd have preferred to use a smaller increment, but that's the SIMMS
> I had). Win95 seemed to be booting normally (the disk was thrashing
> like a barracuda), but after 48 hours I decided the machine was
> better off either dead or with a real OS, so it's got Linux. Which
> installed fine with the 4MB configuration. And screamed when I
> beefed it back up to 16MB.

I agree here, too. Windows 95 really won't like a 486/20. Sure, in
theory, it SHOULD boot, but your lifetime warranty on RAM might
expire before you get to see a Start button. Seriously, I'd use
Windows 3.1. It's a failry efficent OS, and basically, most
Windows 95 applications other than Windows 95 it self, REQUIRE
at least an upper-end 486, whereas Windows 3.1's happy with a
486/20 and Win32's.

I'd also consider running Linux, if your friend is technically-aware,
which will run quite nicely on a 386.. I've got a 386/40 here with
8MB, and it can probably beat my Pentium/233 in Windows.

Tim D. Hotze
Received on Wed Dec 23 1998 - 06:24:43 GMT