Experimenting with old 386 computer with 8MB RAM

Me experimenting with a quite old, but still functional computer with Intel 80386 processor at 66 MHz, 8 MB of RAM and Windows 95. Note that it's older recording.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• 386
• Windows 95
• old computer

[BilisNegra]

@Tailscpp You have 95 on it, while the common thing would be to have 3.1 or even raw DOS on a machine that old... However, in the end you have used the OS only to arrange the shortcuts to your DOS games on the desktop!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!

(I know, I know, that's not a proper computer, it's a bunch of spare parts).

[Tailscpp]

@BilisNegra I suggest you read the title and try to think, before saying something stupid. It doesnt' make any sense to say "the common thing would be" when there's "experimenting" in the headline, since I do not aim to do a common thing (in fact, there was raw DOS), and I wanted to try, if Windows 95 would even run and I had various DOS games from the raw DOS, that was there before, so I put them there first and recorded video (but it was back in 2005) and I tried more things with it aftewards

[Q4Rspwn]

@claicers I think you mean underclock it. That incredible 66 MHz would blow me and my Wang 80386/20 off the f*cking chair. :o

[claicers]

overclock it to 8ghz

[UltraMegaboss]

I also have the crystal cave game! (But I play it on Windows 7 with dosbox)

[KlaussHalkmenno]

...and have working MS Office 95, not is much slow. :D

[KlaussHalkmenno]

386DX 66MHz? over-clock? ahahahahahah

Nice Machine

Try with 3D games! Muwahahaha!

I have 386DX 40MHz 8MB of AMD With Windows 95 and with internet ADSL

[TahreyUK]

@BilisNegra Pretty much our experience when using an 8mb Win95 Toshiba laptop my mother had from work... putting lots of digital photos (VGA and 1.3mpx - high end stuff :-D) in a word document. Oh man, the slowdown & thrash... Other apps would do the same when put under any kind of load. Didn't help that it had far too much stuff in the system tray.

P100 CPU but ran like a dog. My compartively cheap, 24mb Acer (£40 used, much later), clocked down to 60 - dreamy. Near-diskless when maxed to 48mb

[BilisNegra]

@TahreyUK Well, I've never tried anything so extreme. It was a long ago, but I did briefly use a machine (not mine) with 8 mb and 95 on it around ten years ago (the machine was already "old" by that time). Using an old version of Netscape, the experience was not that bad, but if you tried to use the current version of IE by that time, it nearly froze. You could figure out the machine screaming at you... Something like: Stop that!! Are you trying to kill me, you bastard?

[TahreyUK]

@BilisNegra BTW the big thing that ever held win95 back was how much RAM you had. 8mb ran fine for light apps but would start to suffer if you did anything more than make very simple office documents. 12, or particularly 16+ was far better. 4mb........ oh god.

I can certainly see if you ever experienced 95 on an old machine with 4 meg, you'd think it was a bloated and all-over very slow system to use on an older machine.

[TahreyUK]

66mhz? OK, you're gonna have to tell us how you managed that. I could swear the 386 topped out at 40mhz max. Maaaaaaaybe 50, but I've never heard tell of anything except a prototype.

Doesn't it get confusing having the same wallpaper on both machines, btw? For a moment I was ready to shout you down for pulling an obvious fakey on us til I paid proper attention.

[TahreyUK]

@BilisNegra Given that I could run 3.1 quite satisfactorily on a 12mhz 286 with all of 1.1mb (no really - 640k with a 512k upgrade), and 95's minspecs are quite a way below what this fella's got, it doesn't seem too ludicrous an idea. It's what I used for a lightweight replacement OS on an old 60mhz P5 laptop I bought, and it still felt rocket-powered.

Now, trying to get 98SE (superior!) running on there, that'd be a challenge.