Windows Vista >XP>98>95

  brundle 18:33 13 Jul 2007

I've only been using PCs since the '98 days, after reading the `10 most annoying IT products` piece, I wonder if we have changed expectations - did 95>98 require better hardware, I know 98>XP needed at least 256mb to work reasonably well where '98 might have managed very well with 128mb. If people honestly look at the performance of individual components nowadays they don't have much cause to complain - I realise there is a kind of unconscious belief that everything gets bigger and fatter and slower with each revision, but processor types and users requirements all fit into this expectation - a 32 bit CPU needs 4 times the memory of an 8 bit CPU for instructions and operations for example. I am referring to Operating Systems in this instance but
I've used Linux Live-CD's which enable me to do the same things I can in XP just by loading a 50mb Live-CD, but to cater for millions of customers is an entirely different matter...

  brundle 18:33 13 Jul 2007

*- `requirement.`

  interzone55 20:21 13 Jul 2007

To answer your first question, yes Win 98 had higher system requirements than Win 95.

I used to run Win 95 on a 50 Mhz 486DX4 system with a hugh 8mb of RAM.

I don't recall the exact minimum spec required for Win 98, but I think it was a Pentium 133 with 32mb of RAM.

I don't think you would have the full capabilities of WinXP using a 50mb Linux Live-CD like Puppy Linux, but you would certainly have a capable system.

I have to admit that it beggars belief that Vista chews up at least 2gb of hard disc when Ubuntu looks and works as well, and includes a full office suite on a CD.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5 review

See the work of famous artists playing with toys

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

Comment faire une capture d’écran sur un Mac ?