22 Dec
1998
22 Dec
'98
8:46 p.m.
I do agree that 4 MB can do a good amount of stuff (even run IE3.02 for win
3.1). Minix would be great, but my friend wanted to have Win'95 on it,
which is why I threw in the 120MB HD and 14.4 modem. I figured that since
my IBM laptop runs Win'95 fairly good with a 386-20, 120MB HD, and 6 MB RAM,
that the Tandy (486-20) would run it great with 10 MB RAM, until I
discovered that the RAM wouldn't work, and it only has 4 MB.
Would a new BIOS chip solve the problem, or does the RAM limitation have to
do with the M/B? I know in my Tandy 1800HD (same as 3800HD, but a 286),
when I put in the 4 MB chips, the computer boots, and recognizes 1 MB out of
each of the chips, then runs down a huge list of memory errors, then works
fine (after the errors are done).
If a new BIOS won't work, has anyone ever ran Win'95 with 4 MB RAM? How
does it perform?
ThAnX,
--
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: OT, but info needed: RAM uprade
I have run win3.1 in 2mb of ram and 40mb of disk(386/20). Netscape would
never run as they admit it want at least 5mb (and it's cranky at that). I
was able to run a lot of stuff and most dos programs successfully
that was in '93 coad bloat would make that harder but at 4mb you could run
quite a bit. FYI, minix 3.0 in 4mb screams.
Allison
22 Dec
22 Dec
8:11 p.m.
Jason Willgruber wrote:
I do agree that 4 MB can do a good amount of stuff (even run IE3.02 for win
3.1). Minix would be great, but my friend wanted to have Win'95 on it,
which is why I threw in the 120MB HD and 14.4 modem. I figured that since
my IBM laptop runs Win'95 fairly good with a 386-20, 120MB HD, and 6 MB RAM,
that the Tandy (486-20) would run it great with 10 MB RAM, until I
discovered that the RAM wouldn't work, and it only has 4 MB.
Would a new BIOS chip solve the problem, or does the RAM limitation have to
do with the M/B? I know in my Tandy 1800HD (same as 3800HD, but a 286),
when I put in the 4 MB chips, the computer boots, and recognizes 1 MB out of
each of the chips, then runs down a huge list of memory errors, then works
fine (after the errors are done).
If a new BIOS won't work, has anyone ever ran Win'95 with 4 MB RAM? How
does it perform?
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
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.
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gram@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
WARNING: The Attorney General has determined that Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms can be hazardous to your health -- and get away with it.
23 Dec
23 Dec
1:24 a.m.
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
9349
days inactive
9349
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
gram＠cnct.com -
roblwill＠usaor.net -
tim＠thereviewguide.com