4 May
2004
4 May
'04
10:29 a.m.
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 -
4 May
4 May
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 - 
12:01 p.m.
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Scott Stevens 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.
Part of the problem is that MICROS~1 refused to differentiate,
nor even understand, the difference between what was REQUIRED,
v what was RECOMMENDED.
For example, Windoze95 can and will work with a 386,
but MICROS~1 denies it. (a 386SX is limited to 16M of RAM,
which would probably be inadequate for Office)
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.
3.10 also required a 286.
Until a few years ago, I ran 3.10 on 286 machines and 3.00 on 8088s.
3.10 REFUSED to install on 8088, and REFUSED to install on 286 if there
wasn't SOME RAM above 1M.
I don't think that 3.11 needed a 386, but I don't know that for sure.
For anybody running 3.10 or 3.11, go to the CALCULATOR and subtract 3.10
from 3.11 (to see how much difference they
acknowledge?)
BTW, it won't be on-topic for another 4 years, but,...
Windoze98 refuses to install if there isn't a math coprocessor present!
It has been speculated (and rejected) that that was in order to do
floating point calculations for that silly animation when it copies a
file.
Bad news: in another year and change, Windoze95 will be on-topic!
Would anybody want to buy a bunch of Windoze 3.10 BETA floppies?
11:49 a.m.
> 3.1 requires extended memory (286)
On Tue,
4 May 2004 RMaxwell(a)atlantissi.com wrote:
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...
Windoze 3.1 will refuse to install unless there is SOME memory above 1M.
It therefore can not be installed on an 8088 machine.
Preliminary tests in August 1991 on the Beta version confirmed that it
in addition to refusing to install unless there was SOME memory above 1M,
it would not run if that memory were removed.
It WOULD work on an AT that had less than 640K of main memory, but had
some extended (512K main, 128K extended) There is a possibility that it
might work with as little as 16K of extended, but it REFUSES to install
without SOMETHING up there.
11:53 a.m.
On Tue, 4 May 2004 16:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Fred Cisin <cisin(a)xenosoft.com> wrote:
Now I may have to install Windows 3.1 on my Kaypro 8088 system to confirm or
debunk my belief.
And that's a pity as it right now has CP/M-86 installed on it. But I can always
reinstall CP/M-86 anytime (a complete retail box copy of Digital Research branded CP/M-86
sits on my shelf, by the Windows 1.03, DOS 1.0 and WordStar 3.3 complete boxes).
> 3.1
requires extended memory (286)
On Tue, 4 May 2004 RMaxwell(a)atlantissi.com wrote:
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...
Windoze 3.1 will refuse to install unless there is SOME memory above 1M.
It therefore can not be installed on an 8088 machine.
Preliminary tests in August 1991 on the Beta version confirmed that it
in addition to refusing to install unless there was SOME memory above 1M,
it would not run if that memory were removed.
It WOULD work on an AT that had less than 640K of main memory, but had
some extended (512K main, 128K extended) There is a possibility that it
might work with as little as 16K of extended, but it REFUSES to install
without SOMETHING up there.
12:04 p.m.
> Windoze 3.1 will refuse to install unless there
is SOME memory above 1M.
> It therefore can not be installed on an 8088 machine.
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Scott Stevens wrote:
Now I may have to install Windows 3.1 on my Kaypro
8088 system to
confirm or debunk my belief.
And that's a pity as it right now has CP/M-86 installed on it. But I
can always reinstall CP/M-86 anytime (a complete retail box copy of
Digital Research branded CP/M-86 sits on my shelf, by the Windows 1.03,
DOS 1.0 and WordStar 3.3 complete boxes).
That WOULD be a pity.
Do you have an extra hard-drive,
so that you can experiment without
messing up a GOOD configuration?
7489
days inactive
7489
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
RMaxwell＠atlantissi.com -
sastevens＠earthlink.net