🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <28AUG199522550481@vms1.tamu.edu> dfa3147@vms1.tamu.edu (ALEXANDER, DYLAN FLYNN) writes:
>In article <41u08b$que@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes...
>
>
>}Well, as long as we're showing how low you can go, Windows 95 will run on
>}a 386SX at 16 MHz, the lowest speed they made; I have it on a 386SX/25. 
>}It runs fine on a 386DX/33, by the way, and its obvious that you've no
>}experience with the OS on that processor.  
>
>Either Win95 is a damn site faster than 3.1, or you have a lot more
>patience than I have. Win3.1 on a 386 seems infinitely slower than my
>'030 running 7.1.

[snip]

Actually, it's quite acceptable on my 386/33, the machine I used regularly
until January of this year.  Of course, I have 16 MB RAM on that machine,
but I have run it -- taking 12 MB out -- in 4 MB and found it about the
same as Windows 3.1 in terms of speed.  It's no speed demon, but there's
no point throwing out a perfectly good machine that runs Windows 95
perfectly well.

My laptop -- the 386SX/25 with 8 MB -- is decidedly slower, and it seems
that Windows 3.1 was somewhat (though not a whole lot) faster. 

Joe