|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Paul
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: Re: Viewing photos on a Pentium 1 Desktop. |
 |
|
e.271828.p.31415@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | 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 95 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!
|
Various viewing applications are listed here. An "OS Support"
chart is at the bottom of the page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_image_viewers
The second part of the FAQ here has some viewer suggestions.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part2/
At least some programs will be using the free JPEG library from here.
They even include source download for the library. There is a note
in their structure.doc, for example. Many of the UNIX viewers I
compiled in the past, would use this library.
http://www.ijg.org/
"*** Portability issues ***
Portability is an essential requirement for the library. The
key portability issues that show up at the level of system architecture are:
1. Memory usage. We want the code to be able to run on PC-class machines
with limited memory. Images should therefore be processed sequentially (in
strips), to avoid holding the whole image in memory at once. Where a
full-image buffer is necessary, we should be able to use either virtual memory
or temporary files."
Which tells you that, given an incentive, a program won't need much more
in resources, than a decent frame buffer for the graphics. The video
card determines how nice the pictures look, in the sense that a 24 bit
color card is going to look nicer than a "quantized to 8 bit" view.
If the machine is dog-slow, you might send pictures to the recipient
in progressive JPEG format. Maybe they'll see something on the screen
first, while the decompression operation is being completed ?
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
kony
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 4:43 am Post subject: Re: Viewing photos on a Pentium 1 Desktop. |
|
|
On 23 May 2007 15:00:13 -0700, e.271828.p.31415@gmail.com
wrote:
| Quote: | now I have another question: How much RAM do windows 95 and 98 use
just by themselves with absolutely nothing running?
|
It doesn't necessarily matter. Once OS has loaded, some of
it can be swapped out to virtual memory to make room for the
image viewing code and image itself... and it would never be
swapped back into main memory since this is a single-purpose
system.
Win98 as a default installation is too large a memory
footprint for a system with only 16MB memory unless you are
content with a lot more swapping of virtual memory. Use
98Lite to improve that, with less of the OS installed and
running it will use less memory.
Win95... been too long since I used it, I think it needed a
little under 2MB just to run and would run on an 8MB system
fine before considering the application, which would leave
at least 8MB for the image viewer app plus image, or using
paging (slight delay when first starting the image viewing
app) would leave 16-2= 14MB for the app plus image.
IMO a lot of whether it will work ok for your needs could
have to do with other factors like whether the system
supports ATA33, supports a drive that isn't really old so
it's faster (but then is a higher capacity requiring bios
support from the old system OR an ATA(nnn) PCI controller
card for the capacity support). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kony
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 4:44 am Post subject: Re: Viewing photos on a Pentium 1 Desktop. |
|
|
On 23 May 2007 14:36:17 -0700, e.271828.p.31415@gmail.com
wrote:
| Quote: | I was wondering if I could simulate the photo watching experience by
installing windows 95 in a VmWare virtual machine and then tweaking
the amount of memory available?
|
Perhaps to some extent but it would not be so useful when
you aren't using the same hardware.
It only takes a few minutes to install Win95 (if it wasn't
installed already), why not just set it up and see how it
does, and if not good enough, see what you can tweak to
improve performance.
You never did tell us the purpose though, for all we know it
might run as a DOS application if you can find some old DOS
picture viewers... JPG has been around for awhile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paulmd@efn.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:18 am Post subject: Re: Viewing photos on a Pentium 1 Desktop. |
|
|
On May 23, 2:36 pm, e.271828.p.31...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | I was wondering if I could simulate the photo watching experience by
installing windows 95 in a VmWare virtual machine and then tweaking
the amount of memory available?
|
You could.... but WHY??? If you're going to virtualize win95, you
should have a better reason. There are photo viewing programs for
every OS since before the days of DOS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paulmd@efn.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:19 am Post subject: Re: Viewing photos on a Pentium 1 Desktop. |
|
|
On May 23, 3:00 pm, e.271828.p.31...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups