Post subject: 95/NT 3 on 640K? Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:06 am
1337 Beta Collector
Joined Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:17 am
Location New Jersey, USA
Favourite OS 6.2.9200
Can I get Windows 95 or NT 3.1 to work on a PC with 640K base, 3072KB extended of RAM, to be more specific. How many megabytes is that by the way? I've tried 95 but it needs more ram it says. Any way to hack it?
_________________ Dell Studio 1555~4GB~120 GB SSD~Windows 8 Pro~512MB ATI Radeon HD 4500 Dell Inspiron Duo~2GB~320GB HDD~Windows 8 Pro~Intel HD Graphics Macbook A1181~2GB~80GB HDD~Mac OSX 10.7.5 Barebones Rig~6GB~90 GB SSD~Windows 8 Pro~1GB ATI Radeon HD 5450
Post subject: Re: 95/NT 3 on 640K? Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:54 am
Guru Beta Collector
Joined Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:12 am
I ran NT4 and Windows 95 in 20 MB of ram, so i suppose it would. NT4 didn't like it too much, but i suppose that 3.51 is less demanding. Remember these operating systems were written when ram sticks cost a fortune (600$ for a 16 mb ram stick).
OS/2 did quite well in this environment, until it got to vers 4.
I think you probably need to run memtest on your machine, because it looks like some of the memory is not seated properly.
Post subject: Re: 95/NT 3 on 640K? Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:46 am
1337 Beta Collector
Joined Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:46 pm
Location United States
Favourite OS Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64
Actually, I got Windows 95 to run on 4 Mb of ram but it ran sloooowly. I'm not sure if it can run with 3 Mb of extended ram though it is worth a try. I think that what will happen is that if you try, there might be an error when installing it or after installing it, the desktop will like freeze and all that bad stuff. NT 3.5 needs like 12 Mb of ram though the minimum might just be 4 Mb of ram as well. I suggest you just install DOS 7.1 and Microsoft Windows 3.x. That is your best bet for okay results.
Post subject: Re: 95/NT 3 on 640K? Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:47 pm
Amateur Beta Collector
Joined Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:06 am
Favourite OS Windows 2000 2195
Back in 1995 I ran Windows 95 on a Hyundai 486 SX/33 with 4MB RAM (and a 230MB hard drive). It was okay, really, although I didn't do anything too stressful with it, just playing games. I recall that streaming a CD-quality WAV file from the double-speed CD drive was as far as you could go, if you tried doing anything else at the same time it would cause stuttering.
PC Plus (a UK magazine) said in its Windows 95 review that the goal was to give equal performance in 95 as in 3.1 on a 386SX with 4MB RAM and to that end Windows 95 uses a different kernel if you have less than 6MB of RAM total. (I seem to remember that if you went into the Performance tab when running the low-memory kernel you'd get a line advising you to install more RAM).