OS 4.0 Requirements

[star1]

Hi everyone,

What are the requirements for OS4.0??

How much mem is needed to run it??-  hopefully not
like WindosXp with 128MB.

Can someone clarify..

Thanks

[Bobsonsirjonny]

An Amiga One :-)

128MB should be  more than enough.. and its cheap anyway - a stick of 128 is entry level!  - But personally you can never have enough. The more RAM the merrier!

[jeffimix]

I believe it was said 32 Megabytes would be the minimum.

[downix]

Initial release:

Amiga 4000 w/ CyberstormPPC card, 32MB RAM, 500Meg HD.  

[mikeymike]

I've heard 32MB as well.  I wonder what that actually equates to in reality though... I mean, look at MS's OS minimum memory requirements... Win95 on 4MB RAM?  

If OS4 is 32MB absolutely required, then it's not that different to WinNTx :-)

[GadgetMaster]

Win 95 was not an OS but a GUI for DOS.

No 'modern' OS that would perfom efficiently with Just 4MB of RAM.

[downix]

@GadgetMaster

Ahem, I run OpenBSD on 4MB fine.

[mikeymike]

Win 95 was not an OS but a GUI for DOS.

Oh god... don't start this argument again.  Needless to say I disagree strongly, as MS-DOS provided very little backbone for Win95.  And anyone who raises the "yeah but you can still get a command prompt up for WinNTx, which means it runs on top of MS-DOS!" Cringely DOH-quote will get a slap.

All of that aside, what has Win95 being 'officially declared an OS by all parties' got to do with what I said?

No 'modern' OS that would perfom efficiently with Just 4MB of RAM.

Even if it were true, what's that got to do with the price of fish?

[reflect]

Downix said :
"Ahem, I run OpenBSD on 4MB fine."

Eh.. ok. But don't expect me to believe that you're actually using it like you use windows, fully graphical and browsers, etc. cause then it won't run "fine" anymore

For a server doing static things, sure.. that could very well work. Probably need to trim down the services etc that you start, but your statement make it sound so casual that it might give others that hasn't run BSD the wrong impression.

[GadgetMaster]

@Downix

Define fine

I mean exactly what day to day desktop computing operations do you perform on that machine with 4MB ram?

@MikeyMike

I don't know much about the price of fish but the statement that "OS/4 is not that much different than NT" is a bit fishy, not least because OS4 isn't even available to you for comparison.

Having similar minimum memory requirements does not mean that the memory handling and performance will be the same.

Then again I probably misunderstood you anyway.

Also I think I mixed up Win 95 with Win 3.1 actually. All those darn MS OSs seem the same to me ;-)

It was Windows 3.x that was just a front end for DOS ...gotta remember my computing history. :-?

[jeffimix]

windows 9X added 32bit power (excluding Win32S stuff)  Windows 3.1 and lesser were 16 bit just like DOS but provided multitasking and a GUI.

Windows 9X is an OS, you can run stuff in it that DOS can't run. Same goes for Win3.1, IIRC though to a lesser extent (for one thing most proggies were DOS anyhow)

MMMMM Swedish Fish, god's candy, well God's and the wax companie's.

[downix]

@reflect

You did not say "GUI" or any of that.  I do fine work, including text processing and web page design, on that box.

[downix]

@GadgetMaster

Ok, let's go for a full GUI OS in 4MB:

Linux w/ nano-X, or DirectFB
QNX
PalmOS

[GadgetMaster]

IIRC Win 3.x could not be installed untill DOS was installed first.

[GadgetMaster]

@Downix

I have a feeling you knew exactly what I meant and you are purposely being pedantic just to keep this conversation lively.

I have no qualms with that so I won't bother rephrasing my statement. ;-)