🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41u08b$que@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>,
jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) wrote:

> In article <hotelca-2808952252320001@192.0.2.1> hotelca@cris.com (Hotel
California) writes:
> >[snip stuff about modern systems running on 030s and 386s]
> >At my school they are running system 7something on 6MB Classics and
> >Pluses.  For those of you who don't know, a Classic uses the 68000 chip,
> >used in the original 128k Mac introduced on January 24, 19*84* and the
> >Plus is the 3rd Mac model, the first to be platinum instead of beige and
> >also the first with a SCSI port.  What is the minimum requirements for
> >Windows 3.1, a 286?  Windows 95, doesn't that require at *LEAST* a 386 but
> >runnnns baaaaad onnnnnn iiiiiit.  Don't even think about putting it on a
> >8088 or even 80286.  Heck, a 020 Mac can run 7.5 with no prob.
> 
> 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.  
> 
> The 8088 and 80286 rather passe, so Windows 95, Windows 3.1, and os/2 2.x
> and up don't run on it.  Sorta like trying to run system 7.x on a 68000.

You can run 7.x on 68000, which was the point of the last message. BTW,
the Mac classic and plus can only have 4 MB of ram, not 6. The only 68000
macintoshes with the ability to use more than 4 MB of ram were the Mac
Portable and the Powerbook 100.

Louis

-- 
blaster@blaster.microserve.com
Programmers are tools for converting caffeine into code