Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Minimum System Spec

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:16:08 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

What is the mimimum system spec to install WIN98 on ?
Thanks
--
Dave Eade
Global Project Solutions

More about : minimum system spec

Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:41:17 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

See this article:

Minimum Hardware Requirements for a Windows 98 Installation
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=182751

PattyL

"Dave Eade" <DaveEade@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:071F2242-053F-47D6-AFCA-ACE953EF7FA4@microsoft.com...
> What is the mimimum system spec to install WIN98 on ?
> Thanks
> --
> Dave Eade
> Global Project Solutions
>
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:17:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

As a side note to Patty's comments, that article pertains to W98--W98SE's
box says it needs 20 mb of ram. Unless you are doing something very simple,
you are going to find W98 does not work well with the minimum amount of
ram--lots of swap file activity and the system is SLOW. W98 works pretty
good with 64 mb of ram--how much ram is needed really depends on what you do
with the PC.

--
Regards


Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo



"PattyL" <pattyl@XXmvps.org> wrote in message
news:%231D3JtLpFHA.1968@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> See this article:
>
> Minimum Hardware Requirements for a Windows 98 Installation
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=182751
>
> PattyL
>
> "Dave Eade" <DaveEade@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:071F2242-053F-47D6-AFCA-ACE953EF7FA4@microsoft.com...
>> What is the mimimum system spec to install WIN98 on ?
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Dave Eade
>> Global Project Solutions
>>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:28:06 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Dave Eade wrote:
> What is the mimimum system spec to install WIN98 on ?
> Thanks
Don't know (remember) the "specks" but had it installed on 486DX2/66
with 16M RAM.
Did not expect it to "perform" significant work on such "workplace".

Have fun

Stanislaw
Slack user from Ulladulla.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:46:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Ron Badour" <Sorry@NoAddress.com> wrote in message
news:o rlvbENpFHA.1480@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> As a side note to Patty's comments, that article pertains to W98--W98SE's
> box says it needs 20 mb of ram. Unless you are doing something very simple,
> you are going to find W98 does not work well with the minimum amount of
> ram--lots of swap file activity and the system is SLOW. W98 works pretty
> good with 64 mb of ram--how much ram is needed really depends on what you do
> with the PC.
>
> --
> Regards
>
>
> Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98

Well put. :-)
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:01:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> What is the mimimum system spec to install WIN98 on ?

Smallest machine that I've done Win98 on and it works smoothly:
Pentium II 350MHz
64MB RAM
4GB hard drive
8MB Matrox Millenium G200

It was bare Windows and worked really smoothly. By bare - I mean a clean
install. That machine is still running today(I've got a much bigger one
now).
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:01:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I've installed and run Win98 on a 486 w/ 32MB of RAM (you can imagine how
old the video card was.) Worked fine for lots of uses, but can't support
many modern apps.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User

"jkb" <nospam> wrote in message news:o WiuZEQpFHA.320@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> What is the mimimum system spec to install WIN98 on ?
>
> Smallest machine that I've done Win98 on and it works smoothly:
> Pentium II 350MHz
> 64MB RAM
> 4GB hard drive
> 8MB Matrox Millenium G200
>
> It was bare Windows and worked really smoothly. By bare - I mean a clean
> install. That machine is still running today(I've got a much bigger one
> now).
>
>
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:33:53 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> I've installed and run Win98 on a 486 w/ 32MB of RAM (you can imagine how
> old the video card was.) Worked fine for lots of uses, but can't support
> many modern apps.

<swallow> I wonder how...uh...fast? it was. This 350MHz ran fast. In fact -
a lot faster than a 450MHz with 256MB RAM. The 450 had a lot more programs
though - background runners.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:33:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Considering the fact that it was restricted to basic IE/OE and word
processing, etc., and that it was on dial-up in an area that seldom even
logged on faster than 26.6, it was fast enough for the needs, <s>.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User

"jkb" <nospam> wrote in message
news:%23587gWQpFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I've installed and run Win98 on a 486 w/ 32MB of RAM (you can imagine how
>> old the video card was.) Worked fine for lots of uses, but can't support
>> many modern apps.
>
> <swallow> I wonder how...uh...fast? it was. This 350MHz ran fast. In
> fact -
> a lot faster than a 450MHz with 256MB RAM. The 450 had a lot more programs
> though - background runners.
>
>
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:26:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> Considering the fact that it was restricted to basic IE/OE and word
> processing, etc., and that it was on dial-up in an area that seldom even
> logged on faster than 26.6, it was fast enough for the needs, <s>.

I guess so! When was this?
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:26:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

98 thru 2000

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User

"jkb" <nospam> wrote in message
news:o 5UBC0QpFHA.3036@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Considering the fact that it was restricted to basic IE/OE and word
>> processing, etc., and that it was on dial-up in an area that seldom even
>> logged on faster than 26.6, it was fast enough for the needs, <s>.
>
> I guess so! When was this?
>
>
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:52:58 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> 98 thru 2000

Umph. I probably had a IBM PC 300PL then. Specs:
Pentium III 550MHz
128MB RAM
13GB 7200RPM
4MB S3 Inc. Trio3D Integrated. (Hmm, around this time I might have had my
old Radeon 7000 in).

It was a lot better. Though still nothing to my current Win98 machine.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:52:59 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Believe me, that wasn't my main machine. It was good for some experimenting,
loaning out, backup for internet access when working on other machines.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User

"jkb" <nospam> wrote in message
news:eRaCtCRpFHA.3004@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> 98 thru 2000
>
> Umph. I probably had a IBM PC 300PL then. Specs:
> Pentium III 550MHz
> 128MB RAM
> 13GB 7200RPM
> 4MB S3 Inc. Trio3D Integrated. (Hmm, around this time I might have had my
> old Radeon 7000 in).
>
> It was a lot better. Though still nothing to my current Win98 machine.
>
>
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:07:08 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> Believe me, that wasn't my main machine. It was good for some
experimenting,
> loaning out, backup for internet access when working on other machines.

I didn't :-D. Last year I was testing a 486DX2 8MB DOS 6.22. I used to use
it.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 2:54:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

They don't make parts for 'em anymore. MS quotes just that, minimum for the
OS. But who runs nothing but the OS????????? Well, maybe Patty and her
8086..

"Dave Eade" <DaveEade@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:071F2242-053F-47D6-AFCA-ACE953EF7FA4@microsoft.com...
> What is the mimimum system spec to install WIN98 on ?
> Thanks
> --
> Dave Eade
> Global Project Solutions
>
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 5:18:09 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> They don't make parts for 'em anymore. MS quotes just that, minimum for
the
> OS. But who runs nothing but the OS????????? Well, maybe Patty and her
> 8086..

I'm running Win98 on modern parts.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 3:31:12 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:01:28 -0400, "jkb" <nospam> wrote:

>Smallest machine that I've done Win98 on and it works smoothly:
>Pentium II 350MHz
>64MB RAM
>4GB hard drive
>8MB Matrox Millenium G200

>It was bare Windows and worked really smoothly. By bare - I mean a clean
>install. That machine is still running today(I've got a much bigger one
>now).

I find Win98SE's not bad in 32M RAM, but as they say, it depends what
you do with it (i.e. your apps may need more RAM than the OS can get
by with, especially MS Office 2000).

But you don't have to guess... use System Monitor to check the "swap
file in use" metric. The rest don't matter, i.e. pay no attention to
"allocated memory" or "free memory"; if you are not hitting swap, it's
not hurting, and if you are 20M into swap straight after boot before
running any apps, you will feel the pain.

It can be more helpful to strip out underfootware, especially
bloatware such as Norton Antivirus. Once again, System Monitor is
your best guilde; watch what happens when you run it straight after a
boot after using MSConfig to reversably disable stuff.




>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 3:31:13 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> I find Win98SE's not bad in 32M RAM, but as they say, it depends what
> you do with it (i.e. your apps may need more RAM than the OS can get
> by with, especially MS Office 2000).

Never run it that small.

> But you don't have to guess... use System Monitor to check the "swap
> file in use" metric. The rest don't matter, i.e. pay no attention to
> "allocated memory" or "free memory"; if you are not hitting swap, it's
> not hurting, and if you are 20M into swap straight after boot before
> running any apps, you will feel the pain.

With 256MB DDR333 RAM, and a 60GB 7200RPM ATA100 Maxtor - would I feel
anything? I don't care if I would because I almost always have around
80-100MB free. Then I do a memory recovery and get around 161MB.

> It can be more helpful to strip out underfootware, especially
> bloatware such as Norton Antivirus. Once again, System Monitor is
> your best guilde; watch what happens when you run it straight after a
> boot after using MSConfig to reversably disable stuff.

Would you consider AVG Antivirus, ATi control panel, and Xear 3D Audio
config "bloatware". My brother is running XP and has NAV 2004 and he's ok.
I've got AVG and ATi.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:13:39 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> Ah, I read "Never..." as advice, similar to "Never code anything
> bigger than your own head", not as an observation, like "I've never
> coded anything bigger than my own head, but I did write a pretty good
> virtual fruit fly once".

OK - I though that was it :-D.

> I used to (and still do, for old systems) integrate an on-demand DOS
> scanner in various ways.

I've just got AVG, once tried a on-demand at the advice of somebody here - I
gave up.

> OK. I'm using AVG too, and I trust it as far as I trust any of them;
> it's not particularly good at bots and non-viral trojans.

It's blocked Trojans from me. It came from a PC-World CD - AVG caught it.
That really builds up trust in a AV program.

> What HD is it?

Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9. 60GB 7200rpm. ATA100(limited by the mobo,
otherwise ATA133).

> What hurts is head travel, so let's say you have 30G of stuff on a 40G
> 10ms HD. You may get worse than that 10ms average, if the heads have
> to move from the "front" of C: (FATs, first-installed OS code) to the
> end of that 30G file spread (where new temp files are created).

I don't know about the ms of my hard drive, but I have about 28GB used on a
60GB hard drive - that help?

> Next, let's get smart and do some work - create a 7.9G C: for code
> code, swap, temp, TIF, core apps etc., and store most of the rest of
> that 30G file load in logicals beyond that C:. If most head travel is
> in C:, then you'd get close to 2ms or so, especially on the large
> physical HD. You can fill up that 80G and things won't slow down
> much, because the heads seldom have to traverse the bulk.
>
> There are other advantages too, such as page-friendly 4k clusters,
> data safety (avoiding incessant C: write traffic), faster Scandisks
> and Defrags, less impact of fragmentation, better chances of data
> recovery, Scandisk and Defrag the bulk of the HD without these
> processes restarting every time C: burps, etc.
>
> But YMMV, depending on what you put where, how big the various volumes
> are, and where these are located on the HD.

You know more about it than I do. :-?

> The "edge of the world" for Win98 is around 2GHz, plus/minus 300MHz or
> so, and 137G HD capacity. It benefits from some explicit settings if
> RAM is much over 256M, too. You may also have driver issues with new
> kit, e.g. Intel has no Win98xx drivers for the new i9xx chipsets, and
> then there's the heat factor; unless you add something like Waterfall
> or Rain, Win98xx lacks a true processor idle, so processor runs hotter
> in Win9x than it would in XP - and these days, that hurts.

I've got a 2.4GHz Celeron D. Overclocked to 2.8GHz. 256MB DDR333(once again
a mobo limit - would be DDR400).
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:14:46 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"jkb" <nospam> wrote in message news:e1Dlwd3pFHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
[snip]
> > OK. I'm using AVG too, and I trust it as far as I trust any of them;
> > it's not particularly good at bots and non-viral trojans.
>
> It's blocked Trojans from me. It came from a PC-World CD - AVG caught it.
> That really builds up trust in a AV program.
[snip]

Are you sure it was a trojan from that PC-World CD, or possibly just another
'false' alert from AVG?
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:22:33 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> Are you sure it was a trojan from that PC-World CD, or possibly just
another
> 'false' alert from AVG?

Absolutely sure. They had already discovered spyware on the program that I
tried to install. When I alerted them of the virus - I think they confirmed
it.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:58:15 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"jkb" <nospam> wrote in message news:ukdjoZ$pFHA.3352@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > Are you sure it was a trojan from that PC-World CD, or possibly just
> another
> > 'false' alert from AVG?
>
> Absolutely sure. They had already discovered spyware on the program that I
> tried to install. When I alerted them of the virus - I think they confirmed
> it.
Many programs contain spyware, even on the CD's.
Did you ever actually confirm on the trojan? ie:send it in or scan it with
another scanner?
Thanks for the reply.
Buffalo
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 9:53:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:13:39 -0400, "jkb" <nospam> wrote:

>> I used to (and still do, for old systems) integrate an on-demand DOS
>> scanner in various ways.

>I've just got AVG, once tried a on-demand at the advice of somebody here - I
>gave up.

Yes, it's not as easy monitoring all points of ingress, especially
with "network chew-toy" NT. By the time you get to XP, your hardware
can afford the performance hit of resident av and firewall, and I'd go
for both as a matter of course.

>> What HD is it?

>Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9. 60GB 7200rpm. ATA100(limited by the mobo,
>otherwise ATA133).

OK, looks fairly contemporary... what's the warranty, as a matter of
interest? A local price-hero distie seels Maxtor and they have only 1
year, but that may be more a distie thing than a Maxtor thing.

>> What hurts is head travel, so let's say you have 30G of stuff on a 40G
>> 10ms HD. You may get worse than that 10ms average, if the heads have
>> to move from the "front" of C: (FATs, first-installed OS code) to the
>> end of that 30G file spread (where new temp files are created).

>I don't know about the ms of my hard drive, but I have about 28GB used on a
>60GB hard drive - that help?

OK, so head travel would be about half, and thus close to the average
spec that would be quoted for that HD, whatever that may be.

>> The "edge of the world" for Win98 is around 2GHz, plus/minus 300MHz or
>> so, and 137G HD capacity. It benefits from some explicit settings if
>> RAM is much over 256M, too. You may also have driver issues with new
>> kit, e.g. Intel has no Win98xx drivers for the new i9xx chipsets, and
>> then there's the heat factor; unless you add something like Waterfall
>> or Rain, Win98xx lacks a true processor idle, so processor runs hotter
>> in Win9x than it would in XP - and these days, that hurts.

>I've got a 2.4GHz Celeron D. Overclocked to 2.8GHz. 256MB DDR333(once again
>a mobo limit - would be DDR400).

OK - any stability glitches, rewind the overclock - especially if the
overclocking affects PCI, AGP and UIDE as well as CPU. If the mobo
chipset is cut for 533MHz and you're boosting that via overclock,
you'd prefer DDR400 to DDR333 accordingly too.

I'd expect some speed compat issues to kick in at that GHz, such as
one that affects some networking code.

256M RAM's sweet for Win9x, in that AFAIK it's the last "natural"
capacity that doesn't need tweaking.

Sounds like a nice box that would prolly run about the same speed on
XP or Win98xx - more RAM, XP might be faster.



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
!