Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="harshness, post: 4649604, member: 73437"] I have to admit that I was bamboozled by Scott's teasings that you were using a '386-based machine. That said, I offered a possible solution to the issues of running on museum class computers (replacement with a "classic" computer). Museum class devices may be an interesting diversion but they don't have any place as a daily driver for the modern connected user. This is nowhere more evident where someone is trying to run an old version of Firefox because their CPU doesn't support newer versions. This isn't about BB code in and of itself. It is about what the Xenforo authors have done to protect 99.9% of the population from having to use BB code. That involves Javascript and some of the later web technologies that aren't fully supported in outdated browsers. Given some memory, it may well be the fastest version of Windows ever. That said, museum pieces belong in museums and head-to-head tests to demonstrate what's wrong with modern operating systems. Windows 95 OSr2 (the best version of Windows 95) would run in 4MB but as with most Windows versions, double the minimum is always much better. Back then, most Windows programs were largely DOS programs than ran on the bare hardware with a somewhat primative graphics subsystem slapped on top. Subsequent versions of Windows involve lots of Hardware Abstraction Layers and Virtual Machines to that the programs will run on non-x86 hardware (ARM, IA64). These devices make broader hardware compatibility possible but they create a significant burden on the hardware to "emulate" something unfamiliar. There have also been many not particularly well thought out choices (like using 16 bit character sets) that have increased memory and storage requirements. Don't get me started on the Windows Registry. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Search

Reply to thread