I recently upgraded my 486SX 33MHz to a 486DX-4 100MHz. The mobo wasn't designed to be upgradable, as it had no CPU lever bar, but i took a screwdriver and yanked the thing out and firmly pushed the DX-4 in to place. Luckily, it WORKS perfectly! :good: Should I upgrade to Win95? I have 48 MB RAM and 1GB HD lol.
Well, Windows 95 is no longer supported by Microsoft, so there are no more updates for that platform. Besides this, it had some pretty nasty memory leaks that made it difficult to use for extended periods of time. And you already know that Windows 3.1 isn't so much an operating system as a front-end for DOS. With a 486DX ~100MHz /48MB RAM, I'd consider running Kate Linux. It's free, and runs pretty fast even on "classic" hardware like yours. Here are the minimum requirements: i486 20 MB RAM 300 MB HD (For ROOT and SWAP) VGA card soundcard (optional) CDROM (bootable), floppy And a screenshot of Kate in action: In that case you could actually have a modern, secure, functional, internet-capable system which will cost you nothing. But if I had to choose between only Windows 3.1 or 95, I'd have to first ask what you'd be doing with it (and if you already own a copy of 95 or not). All the best, -AT
Well, with 3.1, I can browse the web, get email, use word editing and stuff, and be secure, as adwares/viruses these days aren't compatible with 16bit systems lol
Kate Linux sys rq * i486 * 20 MB RAM * 300 MB HD (For ROOT and SWAP) * VGA card * soundcard (optional) * CDROM (bootable), floppy How's that possible?!?! How can you run a pretty good OS on a 486 w/ 20MB RAM? How does that work?
A large resource footprint doesn't necessarily make an OS better. Since Linux is modular, it's very scalable. It'll run on almost everything as a result, by removing unnecessary and less important features.
Sorry. Windows 3.1 is not even on the scale for security; it's too low. There are lots of things you can do to a Windows 3.1 box which will cause a serious crash.
I think Windows 3.1 is relatively safe. Havn't had any crashes. No viruses yet. Besides, the new bugs are mostly for Win95+ or 32 bit systems. Correct me if i'm wrong.
What I'm saying is that Windows 3.1 doesn't have many reported security breaches because it has no security to begin with. Don't get me wrong; it's your PC not mine. I'm not trying to talk you out of it. I just wanted to be clear that if you're considering Win3.1 for security reasons, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.
Maybe I'll do a dual boot of Kate w/ Win 3.1 when I have time. I like to keep 3.1 because it's antique-like and just plain different. All my friends think it's really cool as it's not seen anymore. Maybe I'll put it on the Antiques Roadshow in 50 years, and they'll give me $50,000 for it. lol
Pigs can fly in Harry Potter. Havn't you heard the incantation "Wingardium Leviosa"? You gotta say it with a nice flick and a swish for it to work. It's as simple as magic - I even did it the other day. :good:
