🚀 go-pugleaf

Joseph T. Malloy (jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu) 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.  

i would suggest you don't know much either. different disk controllers and the apsence of a co-processor can make a huge difference. and if you have a scsi taht can't be loaded high and need to install to that drive or a hard card, you can forget it too. in a pc, almost anything unusual can mess things up. the number of hardware configuration is huge. 

: 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.