Viewing photos on a Pentium 1 Desktop.

On 24 May 2007 00:11:49 -0700, "
wrote:

On May 23, 3:00 pm, wrote:
now I have another question: How much RAM do windows 95 and 98 use
just by themselves with absolutely nothing running?

Win95 will BOOT on 4mb. It'll suck, but it'll boot. 8mb is the bare
min if you actually want to DO something. It's OK on 16mb. If you got
more than that, you might as well install win98se, as things will work
better all around. Surpisingly I found ie6 was more responsive on a
486 than ie5 was.

Win98 will run on 16mb, with basic functionality (internet, wordpad,
etc). 32 or more is better. 128 is better still. 512 is ridiculous,
and anything beyond 512 is impossible in win9x.


??

I've had a system running Win98SE with 1GB in it for several
years. Had to edit the system.ini to specify a lower vcache
value, but otherwise despite what MS et al claim about
improved memory management of later OS, it responds
similarly with a performance increase on larger jobs.

I couldn't say 512MB is ridiculous either as I used to edit
quite a lot of audio in the 98 era and a system would chug
along for several minutes if it didn't have (approaching
that, at the time it was as much memory as the budget and
some motherboards allowed) 384MB, then 512MB. Putting in
512MB was like magic, reducing paging made 3 minute jobs run
in a fraction of the time.

On 23 May, 03:38, wrote:
Hello everybody!
I have a friend with an old Pentium 1 desktop with windows 95 lying
around. I think that the processor is rated at 90 MHz and the system
has 16 MB of ram.
I was wondering if the computer is still powerful enough to be still
used to view .jpg images. The images do not have to be larger than
800x600 resolution.
I also have no idea about what graphics card the system has, but I
think that it definatley has 2 MB of onboard memory.
Otherwise I do not know anything else about the specs, and I would not
be able to provide additional information.
I was thinking of trying to get it to work with ACDSee 3.0. I tested
the program on my Windows XP machine, and it used about 10-12 MB of
ram when viewing .jpg's of these resolutions.
What are your thoughts on this? Can it be done?

Also I was wondering how many colors does Windows 98 support? Can it
go to 32-bit?

P.S. the computer was purchased around the year 1995, if this helps.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

course it can view darn pictures!!!

people were playing Doom on those, easily.

some people were still using win98 even in 2005 , because of fear of
win xp !!

you could make the resolution small enough to have to strain your
eyes. Higher than 800x600. this is more about video card memory than
OS restriction. I'm not that into ultra high resolution, i guess it
depends on application. I just use cheap video cards, they let me
watch video clips or anything..

wrote:
Hello everybody!
I have a friend with an old Pentium 1 desktop with windows 95 lying
around. I think that the processor is rated at 90 MHz and the system
has 16 MB of ram.
I was wondering if the computer is still powerful enough to be still
used to view .jpg images. The images do not have to be larger than
800x600 resolution.
I also have no idea about what graphics card the system has, but I
think that it definatley has 2 MB of onboard memory.
Otherwise I do not know anything else about the specs, and I would not
be able to provide additional information.
I was thinking of trying to get it to work with ACDSee 3.0. I tested
the program on my Windows XP machine, and it used about 10-12 MB of
ram when viewing .jpg's of these resolutions.
What are your thoughts on this? Can it be done?

Also I was wondering how many colors does Windows 98 support? Can it
go to 32-bit?

P.S. the computer was purchased around the year 1995, if this helps.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

When I was using such machines they were able to view jpg's but the
quality is probably no where near what it is with the newer graphics cards.

wrote:
Hello everybody!
I have a friend with an old Pentium 1 desktop with windows 95 lying
around. I think that the processor is rated at 90 MHz and the system
has 16 MB of ram.
I was wondering if the computer is still powerful enough to be still
used to view .jpg images. The images do not have to be larger than
800x600 resolution.
I also have no idea about what graphics card the system has, but I
think that it definatley has 2 MB of onboard memory.
Otherwise I do not know anything else about the specs, and I would not
be able to provide additional information.
I was thinking of trying to get it to work with ACDSee 3.0. I tested
the program on my Windows XP machine, and it used about 10-12 MB of
ram when viewing .jpg's of these resolutions.
What are your thoughts on this? Can it be done?

Also I was wondering how many colors does Windows 98 support? Can it
go to 32-bit?

P.S. the computer was purchased around the year 1995, if this helps.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

I remember viewing jpg's on a 486 but the best color you could get was
256 colors. They didn't have agp slots. I think the same is true of the
machine you are talking about if you are willing to view them in 256
colors you can do it but of course the quality is not as good as 32 bit
highest of the new machines.

"ProfGene" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Hello everybody!
I have a friend with an old Pentium 1 desktop with windows 95 lying
around. I think that the processor is rated at 90 MHz and the system
has 16 MB of ram.
I was wondering if the computer is still powerful enough to be still
used to view .jpg images. The images do not have to be larger than
800x600 resolution.
I also have no idea about what graphics card the system has, but I
think that it definatley has 2 MB of onboard memory.
Otherwise I do not know anything else about the specs, and I would not
be able to provide additional information.
I was thinking of trying to get it to work with ACDSee 3.0. I tested
the program on my Windows XP machine, and it used about 10-12 MB of
ram when viewing .jpg's of these resolutions.
What are your thoughts on this? Can it be done?

Also I was wondering how many colors does Windows 98 support? Can it
go to 32-bit?

P.S. the computer was purchased around the year 1995, if this helps.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

I remember viewing jpg's on a 486 but the best color you could get was 256
colors. They didn't have agp slots. I think the same is true of the
machine you are talking about if you are willing to view them in 256
colors you can do it but of course the quality is not as good as 32 bit
highest of the new machines.

This Pentium must have a more powerful graphics card than you mention. I
was using 486DX machines that were clearly quite old in 1994, when I was at
university. They had 800x600 screens running at 16-bits.

Later, in 1997 I had a Pentium I machine with 1024x768 screen in True colour
with 32-bits.

ss.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:36:56 +0100, "Synapse Syndrome"
wrote:


This Pentium must have a more powerful graphics card than you mention. I
was using 486DX machines that were clearly quite old in 1994, when I was at
university. They had 800x600 screens running at 16-bits.

Later, in 1997 I had a Pentium I machine with 1024x768 screen in True colour
with 32-bits.


As always, graphics depended on what board you plugged into
the slot. Around that era there were changes very
substantial to whether it could support 800x600, 24bit, or
higher... for example the move from 2MB to 4MB or 8MB
onboard memory and fast enough ramdac that it wasn't so
fuzzy an output.

wrote:
Hello everybody!
I have a friend with an old Pentium 1 desktop with windows 95 lying
around. I think that the processor is rated at 90 MHz and the system
has 16 MB of ram.
I was wondering if the computer is still powerful enough to be still
used to view .jpg images. The images do not have to be larger than
800x600 resolution.
I also have no idea about what graphics card the system has, but I
think that it definatley has 2 MB of onboard memory.
Otherwise I do not know anything else about the specs, and I would not
be able to provide additional information.
I was thinking of trying to get it to work with ACDSee 3.0. I tested
the program on my Windows XP machine, and it used about 10-12 MB of
ram when viewing .jpg's of these resolutions.
What are your thoughts on this? Can it be done?

Also I was wondering how many colors does Windows 98 support? Can it
go to 32-bit?

P.S. the computer was purchased around the year 1995, if this helps.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

It should but you will not likely get the high definition graphics of
newer graphics cards. I used to view and edit photos on a 486 but with
256 colors as the best quality picture. These older computers did not
have AGP slots so the graphics cards were more limited.