Minimum hardware requirements (Was: Old, but not "Classic"

From: jpero_at_pop.cgocable.net <(jpero_at_pop.cgocable.net)>
Date: Fri Nov 13 19:30:17 1998

> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:45:07 -0500
> Reply-to: classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu
> From: allisonp_at_world.std.com (Allison J Parent)
> To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers" <classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Minimum hardware requirements (Was: Old, but not "Classic"

> < 3.0 can run with CGA.
>
> It does, or at least mine does.
>
> < 3.10 SUPPOSEDLY can use the 3.0 CGA drivers, but they don't always work;
> < 3.1 therefore needs EGA
>
> Error! my 3.1 kit (circa 1992) has both CGA and VGA3.0 drivers along with
> about 15 others. I've used it with Mono, Herc, CGA, VGA.

If I want to use b/w I choose TTL monitor and HGC or use any of few
cards that emulates EGA modes to TTL monitor. CGA plain sucks.

>
> < I don't know what the mimimum RAM requirements are, but my 486 NEC lapto
> < can only handle "safe mode". (It has a hardware problem that prevents
> < upgrading the memory)
>
> For 3.1 it wants 2.0mb but I've run it on a 50Z with 1mb!

True and that is only windows itself! To be realatisc, 12~16MB and
nearly all websites demands at least netscape 3.x. That is where
this made any 286 and 386sx to throw their trowels in. Cached 386DX
25 and up, any low end 486 boxens w/o L2 cache excels at this.
Yes, there is several alterative web browsers besides that horrid
IE's but problem is how can one can read the PDF files? I have this
problem for my low end machines but what program I can view those
PDF's? I read them nearly daily.

> For a useable system 4-8mb is the minima based not on winders itself but
> the apps you plan to run. Netscape(v3.0) in less than 8mb tends to crash
> Intermittently but with 12mb is rock solid. It will not even start up
> unless you have 5mb!

Many didn't realize that what I'm trying to say all along and getting
386dx and 486 machines or in parts to build with are best way because
of easier interagation of extra memory found easily because of enough
memory simm slots and better support of IDE, don't have to be
over 504MB, drives due to user-defineable and no need for
setup disks, usually. Everything is easily found, working, used
and. cheaply.

 
> True, also some apps may have their own want list that exceeds the minima
> by a lot.

Dead right.

Based on my experiences:

Don't bother the win95 on anything lesser than 386DX 40, L2 cache
and up with more than 16MB, good HD. CPU hungry, ram hungry and
count on users download their favorites and quickly discover mistake
if they didn't follow this specs I listed. Subbing cached 386dx 40
for cached 486 or mayble low end pentium types with good hd is best
option, but still needs some type of accelerated video card to keep
scrolling around confortable and sane.

win98 is out it needs at least 32MB and weighs in at 200MB installed
without anything extra just full configured win98 itself, loves
accelerated video cards, 1< GB, at least DX4 100 and up with
fully tuned, well designed hardwares for max performance
motherboards. PnP get hairy if mainboard does have sick PnP better
have none or 100% working PnP.

Wonder why that I knew CPU performance profiles very well, I profiled
all the way from 8088 to K6's.

The 8088/8086 is very weak CPU even it really strains gobbing and
processing dir requests (watch the HD light blinks, in off states
between flashes, it's cpu is what doing the processing work!)

286 is much better at this but only small grouping of 10, 12, 16 (20
and 25 was seen but are found on crappy motherboards so they're out).
But remember 286 boards often are found with 1 or 2MB max and
many have SIPPS sockets, and very few actually have 8 SIMMS
slots, 4 slots being common.

286 is good for general DOS and bit heavy DOS stuff. and in last
resort, 8088 for very specific, limited use are perfectly fine.

286 and 386sx runs about the same in
lockstep in performance wise. 386DX 16, 20 is tagging in and just
ahead of highest performing 386sx 33/40 386DX 25, 33, 40 with cache
just fine but the 486 at 16, 20, 25 significently overlaps on those
386DX 33 and 40. This groupings are best for 3.x windows
use with 8MB to 16MB. Everything get blown out of their pond when
486 25, 33, 40 combined with 128K or 256K cache. Still good for 3.x
and 95 and also best for dx2, dx4, 5x86 with 16MB+, sweet spot for
win95 is low end pentiums with 20MB~32MB, low end accelerated video
card a must, e.g. trio 64V+, Tseng et4000/w32i/p, ATI Ultra for
example.

This is not for HIGHEST performance. it is how good it can run
without making things crawling too often or whipping the hd.

Jason D.

>
> Allison
>
 
email: jpero_at_cgocable.net
Pero, Jason D.
Received on Fri Nov 13 1998 - 19:30:17 GMT