Ridiculous Specs

[sheenafan1000]

I recently decided to look at my computers specs, seeing as I hadn't for some reason or another, and found that I am operating on 240Mbs of RAM. I am not kidding. It's no wonder it won't load youtube correctly.... So my question to all of you is, what's the most ridiculous specs you've heard/seen?

[ultra_maniac]

Processor: 70mhz Intel. Other than that, I don't know.
RAM: 16MB
Hard Disk: 1.5GB
OS: Windows '95
this was the worst i've heard

[Eris]

My TI-84+ has a 15 Mhz processor and 128 Kb ram.

But anyway, I don't think it's fair to call these computers ridiculous. They're just a bit old.

[FlashD]

Each machine has the specifications made for what it was created for. O_o
Desktop computers have insane specs, since they were made for all sorts of things. Generally a normal home user doesn't need a quad-core CPU since nothing really uses all that power, but these same processors are used in laboratories which need complex calculus. Then you have consoles. The PlayStation 2 works on a 300Mhz processor as an example. Commodore 64 had a 1Mhz processor and 64kB of RAM. And so on ... BTW: Even if it doesn't seem like that a Commodore and the PlayStation are both computers, just created for specific stuff.

It really depends what you look at. Besides as far as computers go, time is a huge enemy for every system (as Eris has already said). Did you know that the hard disk from the '80s had 20MB of storage and was big as the normal PS2 (not slim one)?

As for your specs ... a system with 240MB of RAM was valued as a high end system (here factors like CPU, GFX are also included, just omitted) only 9 years ago. A lot of systems with Windows XP preinstalled were shipped with 256MB of RAM by default.

[TheAsterisk!]

For the longest time, I ran a Win98 eMachines tower with 32 MB memory, a 3.2 GB HDD and, if memory serves (it was junked two years ago), a 300 or 350 MHz processor. That was the worst computer I've ever had, but not the lowest spec'd.
I had another tower branded with a CTX logo that ran Win95, but other than a smaller 2 GB HDD, it's specs were pretty similar.

Down in my basement, I have some type of IBM desktop from 1984 running PC-DOS, and I know it has RAM in the kilobytes and a 20 MB hard drive (yes, megabyte- not unlike the one FlashD mentioned above), but I'm not about to the move the thing to find out anymore about it. It's running now, and the last time I moved it it took a few days of clueless tinkering and repositioning until it would start again.

I actually used an IBM T22 ThinkPad with a 900 MHz processor, 128 MB RAM and a 20 GB HDD up until a few months ago, when the case split open in a fall.
Still, the thing runs, and it has no trouble viewing YouTube videos, but then again I am running a lightweight Linux designed for old, outdated crap. You just have to remember not to try to pick it up, or the pieces of the case move 'round as they please.


Interestingly, that 3.2 GB HDD from the old eMachines tower is in use running a test installation of Puppy Linux on a Compaq tower with 256 MB RAM and a 1.7 GHz processor, and the 2 GB one is in that tower, too. It's better to ruin that installation testing potentially buggy programs than to jeopardize my workhorse tower or new laptop, then install elsewhere once I know they work.