4 May
2004
4 May
'04
11:41 a.m.
On Tue, 4 May 2004 18:29:56 -0400
RMaxwell(a)atlantissi.com wrote:
I have noticed 'myths' and folklore about hardware requirements to run Microsoft
stuff for decades now. I, for example, run Office 2000 quite adequately on an old 486
laptop that only has 32 megs of RAM. Something most people consider impossible. I ran
Windows for a long, long time on my 8088 based system.
I remember upgrading to a 286 so I could have 4 megs of RAM, and even later upgrading to a
386 so I could run '386 enhanced mode.'
Windows 3.11 certainly required at least a 286, I think maybe even a 386, as it abandoned
standard mode (if I recall correctly). Not that this Microsoft arcana is really that
interesting.... I hope it's not ever going to be considered as interesting as the DEC
and CP/M and what-not lore that preceedes it.
On Mon, 3 May
2004, Scott Stevens wrote:
On Mon,
3 May 2004, Fred Cisin wrote:
I ran Windows 3.1 on frighteningly underpowered
machines for a long
time. My 8088 XT Clone ran Windows 3.1 in several configurations:
You were probably running 3.0!
3.1 requires extended memory (286)
IIRC, you DON'T need extended memory to run Win3.1 in "Standard" mode,
just "386 Enhanced" mode. Of course, "Standard" couldn't switch
tasks
or do much of what people expect of Windoze now (except crash). I recall
the day I came back from the Rochester (NY) Hamfest with a $5 RAM board
that gave me a whole 1MB on top of my 640K and the chance to turn on the
Enhanced functions...
Bob Maxwell
- still running 3.1 on 486s at home -