3 ms·

The wording of the need for the '286 isn't quite right. Windows 3.0 supported the 286 too, but also had support for the 386's protected mode. Related fact, Wi

The wording of the need for the '286 isn't quite right. Windows 3.0 supported the 286 too, but also had support for the 386's protected mode. Related fact, Windows/386 2.0 supported protected mode[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.0x https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.0x

ForOldHack 4y ago
Even without the reference, You were there, and I was there, too. I had to support a client, who needed Win/386 2.0 protected mode for a DOS app, as well as run PageMaker.
lproven 4y ago
I wrote the comment and the blog post. What wording are you referring to? Yes, Windows supported the 286 too. There was a special Windows 2 version for 286s, and a different edition for 386s; what was novel in Windows 3.0 is that one edition and one install on disk supported all three: 8086, 80286, and 80386, all in one. Windows 3.0 had 3 modes: - if it had <2MB of RAM or just an 8088/8086/NEC V20 etc. chip, it started in Real Mode. - if it had 2MB of RAM and a 286, it started in Standard Mode. No 386 features enabled. - if it had >=2MB of RAM and a 386, it started in 386 Enhanced Mode. https://komh.github.io/os2books/gg243731/214_L3_386EnhancedMode.html https://komh.github.io/os2books/gg243731/214_L3_386EnhancedM... https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20130208-00/?p=5303 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20130208-00/?p=53... I have written about this, too: https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/78006.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/78006.html It wasn't well-known even then, but Windows 2 and 3 could multitask DOS apps without a 386. V86 mode wasn't needed for the multitasking, but for the memory management. The multitasking worked, the problem was trying to fit several DOS apps into the base 1MB of RAM for them to multitask. What the 386 delivered was separate 640kB slots for each DOS VM.
- cardiffspaceman 4y ago
  I read about the multitasking of DOS programs in some round-up of DOS multitasking systems (DeskView et al.), and convinced my boss to fund experimentally adding 4 MiB of RAM and a Windows 3.0 license to my 386-based clone. I got a build (cross-assemble) of my code going, and then entered the Brief editor, and pondered what exactly I had enabled. Then an in-house utility was invoked from the makefile to download my code into the target, and my whole system froze. Thus endeth the experiment.
  - lproven 4y ago
    Anything that hit the metal directly could cause problems, yes. You had to be pretty careful and test stuff first. TBH I didn't use these multitasking tools much. I was a support guy then; I worked on other people's PCs so I needed to know how to use the built-in tools to best advantage. I could not rely on additional apps, utilities, etc. because the PC I was fixing almost certainly wouldn't have them. Late in that era I carried around a wallet with about 20 floppies full of freeware tools and utilities for this reason. But for me it was occasionally very handy to be able to go and make a directory, or format a diskette or something, while in the middle of something in an app. But I wouldn't try something that wrote to the hardware, do file transfers or something. Serial ports if you were very careful to set them up so they didn't share IRQs, which of course on the PC was the normal standard config -- COM1: shared IRQ 4 with COM3:, and COM2: shared IRQ 3 with COM4: While LPT1: was on IRQ 7 and why on Earth can I still remember this 35 years later? >_<

ForOldHack 4y ago

Even without the reference, You were there, and I was there, too. I had to support a client, who needed Win/386 2.0 protected mode for a DOS app, as well as run PageMaker.

lproven 4y ago

I wrote the comment and the blog post. What wording are you referring to? Yes, Windows supported the 286 too. There was a special Windows 2 version for 286s, and a different edition for 386s; what was novel in Windows 3.0 is that one edition and one install on disk supported all three: 8086, 80286, and 80386, all in one. Windows 3.0 had 3 modes: - if it had <2MB of RAM or just an 8088/8086/NEC V20 etc. chip, it started in Real Mode. - if it had 2MB of RAM and a 286, it started in Standard Mode. No 386 features enabled. - if it had >=2MB of RAM and a 386, it started in 386 Enhanced Mode. https://komh.github.io/os2books/gg243731/214_L3_386EnhancedMode.html https://komh.github.io/os2books/gg243731/214_L3_386EnhancedM... https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20130208-00/?p=5303 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20130208-00/?p=53... I have written about this, too: https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/78006.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/78006.html It wasn't well-known even then, but Windows 2 and 3 could multitask DOS apps without a 386. V86 mode wasn't needed for the multitasking, but for the memory management. The multitasking worked, the problem was trying to fit several DOS apps into the base 1MB of RAM for them to multitask. What the 386 delivered was separate 640kB slots for each DOS VM.

cardiffspaceman 4y ago
I read about the multitasking of DOS programs in some round-up of DOS multitasking systems (DeskView et al.), and convinced my boss to fund experimentally adding 4 MiB of RAM and a Windows 3.0 license to my 386-based clone. I got a build (cross-assemble) of my code going, and then entered the Brief editor, and pondered what exactly I had enabled. Then an in-house utility was invoked from the makefile to download my code into the target, and my whole system froze. Thus endeth the experiment.
- lproven 4y ago
  Anything that hit the metal directly could cause problems, yes. You had to be pretty careful and test stuff first. TBH I didn't use these multitasking tools much. I was a support guy then; I worked on other people's PCs so I needed to know how to use the built-in tools to best advantage. I could not rely on additional apps, utilities, etc. because the PC I was fixing almost certainly wouldn't have them. Late in that era I carried around a wallet with about 20 floppies full of freeware tools and utilities for this reason. But for me it was occasionally very handy to be able to go and make a directory, or format a diskette or something, while in the middle of something in an app. But I wouldn't try something that wrote to the hardware, do file transfers or something. Serial ports if you were very careful to set them up so they didn't share IRQs, which of course on the PC was the normal standard config -- COM1: shared IRQ 4 with COM3:, and COM2: shared IRQ 3 with COM4: While LPT1: was on IRQ 7 and why on Earth can I still remember this 35 years later? >_<