Haven’t seen the default VB6 Form icon in a while…
I saw it like 2 or 3 years ago when I was still making a Banking app on it…
This is real?
Could Windows 95 really run well on only 32 megs of RAM?
I did tech support for a computer line that had Windows 95 on 8MB of RAM. It was pretty snappy for its time. Windows 3.1 flew on that hardware.
32MB of RAM on a PC? Only UNIX workstations and servers had that kind of luxury.
my first win 95 pc had a whopping 8MB of ram. I got into programming on that thing
Oh yeah:
The minimum hardware requirements for Microsoft Windows 95 are:
>A personal computer with a 386DX, 20MHz or higher processor, running the MS-DOS operating system version 3.2 or later, or running Microsoft Windows version 3.0 or later, or running OS/2 version 2.0 or later >Note: Do not install Windows 95 on a computer with a B1 (stepping) chip. >4MB of memory (8MB recommended) >At least 70MB of available hard disk space for installation >Actual requirements may vary based on features you choose to install. UITS recommends that you keep at least 10% of the drive free to reduce errors and fragmentation; therefore, on a 1GB drive, keep 100MB free. >One 3.5" high-density disk drive or a CD-ROM drive >VGA or higher resolution graphics card
What’s this B1 chip?
I was also curious.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000057218/processors.html
After going through some Tom’s Hardware posts, it sounds like one of the B1 chips at that time was unable to do power saving modes? Maybe win 95 was incompatible with that?
https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/b1-vs-c1-stepping.297173/post-1974732
Edit: back with more info https://jeffpar.github.io/kbarchive/kb/119/Q119118/
So I was wrong.
Intel 386 microprocessors dated before April 1987 are known as B1 stepping chips. These chips are known to introduce random math errors when performing 32-bit operations, thus making them incompatible with Windows 95.
Absolutely
- shiveyarbles ( @shiveyarbles@beehaw.org ) 1•2 years ago
This gives me MFC flashbacks