R
Robert Heiling
philo said:
Ahhh! Yes, indeed. Never be without one. Over 8 1/2 years and counting since
June 25, 1998.
Bob
P
philo
Robert Heiling said:Ahhh! Yes, indeed. Never be without one. Over 8 1/2 years and counting since
June 25, 1998.
Millions of win98 installations
but not too many on a 386... it took a lot of work to get it there ...
especially because a 386 is not supported for win98...one cannot even run
setup on a 386
B
beenthere
Well done that man <g>.philo said:
I see you were trying to save on memory.
On the pic, it says phio, so that`s an L saved
Every byte counts <g>.
Well done again, but stop mucking about. %> ).
J
jameshanley39
philo said:
What MHz is it?
Isn't that an enormous amount of memory for a 386?
My 386 was 386SX 16Mhz 4MB RAM
I think the notation was 386SX/16 (not sure if that's right, or
whether capital SX)
P
philo
well this one is an AMD 40 mhz...
and I could actually get more RAM in it than 16 megs...
but yes...16 megs is alot for a 386 i guess
P
philo
beenthere said:
It's odd, because the jpg i posted has my full name of "philo"
when viewing...it's sometimes seen on the web page as "phio" and sometimes
as "philo"
don't know why
J
jameshanley39
philo said:
who knew AMD then?! With no internet access I only knew Intel and M$
N
Noozer
So... How does it run?!?
We want benchmarks, dammit!
: )
P
philo
Ok
first off...even by using the /nm switch...
you cannot load win98 on a 386
what i first did was just pop a HD into the 386 that already had win98 on
it...
even in safe mode...as soon as explorer tried to load it crashed.
my next try was to use a HD that had win98lite loaded.
(Basically, it's win98 but with the compatibility forced to allow the win95
explorer shell)
Now, the HD with win98 lite on it at least booted to safe mode...
but I had to perform a number of registry hacks to get it to actually run
regularly (ie: not in safe mode)
So it's basically a hybrid OS ...part win95 and part win98
Because it is using the win95 explorer shell...believe it or not it actually
runs quite well...
Considering that you can run win95 on a 386 (16mhz) with as little as 4 megs
of ram
putting esentially win95 on a 386-40mhz with 16 megs of ram...is actually
not too bad !
R
Robert Heiling
philo said:
What size did you decide to make the swap file?
Bob
P
philo
What size did you decide to make the swap file?
I did not specify...it's just set to the default of "let windows decide"
I don't recall exactly how large it was...but think it was probably fairly
small
as 16 megs of ram is plenty for what is essentially just win95
btw: I once was fooling around with trimming win95 to a bare minimum...
and put win95 on a 40 meg *uncompressed* drive
(I xcopied it there from a larger drive)
On that drive I had to set the swap file to a permanent 2 megs...
as there was virtually no free space left.
I even had to use a utility called UPX to compress some of the larger
executables.
BTW: That machine was also a 386-40 with 16 megs of ram
G
Grinder
Noozer said:
The link provided earlier is actually a real-time movie of the PC's
perfomance. Here it is again:
http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/win98_386.jpg
P
philo
Actually it runs approx the same as win98 on my old machine...
a pentium1 -75mhz with 40 megs of ram