«

[Havell]

I can remember running Red Alert just fine on my 133 MHz, 16mb RAM , 1 meg video memoey machine (under Windows 95). That's a particularly good DOS computer, and I don't think any DOS game could defeat it.

[gregor]

Yah you can run Win95 just perfect on it. Which will run all windows games from the time inlcuding C&C, Red Alert etc...

[tomf]

I heard 95 was buggy so I'll pass on that Dos/98SE will do me (although 98 is a little slow)

[gregor]

works fine with me...

i think later versions had a lot of bugs fixed and it wont' work s,ow at all on that computer (remember it had 16MB RAM as recomended, so even 32 runs it swell). just make sure you get some version like SE or SP2 :-) dont' know how it was called for 95...

[Japo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tomf @ Oct 11 2007, 07:31 AM) [snapback]315630[/snapback]</div>

(although 98 is a little slow)[/b]

That's because of RAM. 40 MB is enough for DOS (including Win3.x) but not for Win9x. Actually running Win9x with just 40 MB will strain the hard disc (virtual memory) and could even harm it over time (yes muck happened to me, and I had 64 MB). I say, that machine is a perfect DOS machine, but use other for Win9x, Virtual PC is a good option --IF you really need Win9x (yuck).

[The Fifth Horseman]

Win 95 will run acceptably on 8 MB, though 16 is recommended.
Win 98 will run on 16 MB, but 32 is a must.

[Japo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_fifth_horseman @ Oct 11 2007, 09:52 AM) [snapback]315649[/snapback]</div>

Win 98 will run on 16 MB, but 32 is a must.[/b]

Dunno about Win95 but I don't think it's much different. Win98 needs much more than 32, and 64, MB. At least in my experience.

To help Tom in his particular case, let he please answer this question: When your Win98 lags, do you notice heavy hard disc usage? (Hard disc usage is identifiable by a small light on the CPU usually accompanied by the drawing of a hard disc [a short cylinder]. During heavy usage intervals the light is on for longer than off.)

[gregor]

again my second maschine had 64 MB ram (just because windows required 32 MB - you might notice i always go for double than recomended) and it was running 98SE. was working very smooth. of course upgrading it to 320 later on proved to be quite a big boots.

[Japo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gregor @ Oct 11 2007, 12:13 PM) [snapback]315672[/snapback]</div>

of course upgrading it to 320 later on proved to be quite a big boost.[/b]

Precisely. Maybe we all have different meanings for smooth or smooth enough. My moto is, "if you don't have spare RAM, you don't have enough RAM". I assure you that it's much more sensible an approach that it souds. (I started with DOS and it didn't use virtual memory, that may be the cause of my fanaticism... :P)

[The Fifth Horseman]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Oct 11 2007, 11:17 AM) [snapback]315658[/snapback]</div>

Dunno about Win95 but I don't think it's much different.[/b]

It does not require nearly as much RAM and CPU power as 98. You can run 95 pretty well on 8 to 16 MB of RAM.

Win98 needs much more than 32, and 64, MB. At least in my experience.[/b]

As far as my experience with it goes, 32 is the bare minimum - and I don't say I recommend using that, just that with Win98 going below that value isn't a good idea (it works on 16... but only in theory). Of course, Win95b will run on the same amount of RAM much faster.