4 ms·
> Previous Windows versions were for 8088 or 80286, which caused serious limitations for how memory was allocated and used. No, this is not true. Windows/386 2
by skissane 2y ago
> Previous Windows versions were for 8088 or 80286, which caused serious limitations for how memory was allocated and used.
No, this is not true. Windows/386 2.0 (and 2.1 and 2.11) were specifically for the 80386 only. The other edition of Windows 2.x, Windows/286, was for 80286 (and despite its name suggesting it required a 286, it was supported on 8086 as well, albeit with fewer features)
> Saying that Windows 3.0 was a follow-up is not really appropriate because it was a very different operating system, even if many APIs had remained as compatible as possible with the earlier Windows versions.
Again, I don't see how this is true. Windows 3.0's 386 Enhanced Mode was a direct evolution of Windows/386 2.x.
It sounds like you are under the false impression that the 386-only mode was a new thing in Windows 3.0, when it wasn't, it was first introduced with Windows/386 2.0
- adrian_b 2y agoI assume that you are right, but for some reason the 386-mode of Windows 2.x has not been popular and it was little known. That must have been either because Windows 2.x in general was not popular, or because before 1990 the computers with 80386 were too expensive. What I know for sure is that since 1990 Windows 3.0 has become popular enough and most of its users were using the 386 mode, which removed the problems caused by memory relocation. Before Windows 95, most serious work would still be done using MS-DOS programs, frequently using EMM386.SYS for upper memory access, but many also had Windows 3.x on their computers and were toying with it from time to time.