sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) (05/18/91)
I'd like to hear your experiences about running Windows on a 286- based PC. Minimum RAM? Desireable RAM? monitor? DOS apps? Windows apps? etc... My feeling is that the base platform should be a 386SX and the price difference between 286 and 386SX tells me to go for the latter. Thanks in advance. -- Malcolm Sharp Coordinator, Instructional/Technical Support University of Southern California School of Public Administration
elmanad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) (05/19/91)
In article <32974@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >I'd like to hear your experiences about running Windows on a 286- >based PC. Minimum RAM? Desireable RAM? monitor? DOS apps? >Windows apps? etc... > >My feeling is that the base platform should be a 386SX and the >price difference between 286 and 386SX tells me to go for the >latter. > >Thanks in advance. > >-- >Malcolm Sharp >Coordinator, Instructional/Technical Support >University of Southern California >School of Public Administration I have been using Windows 3.0 on a 286 with 1 meg of RAM and a 40-meg HD for about a year now. I do have a few observations: I don't notice that much of a speed problem, even when I have five or six (fairly small) programs running -- for instance, I have the clock, calculator, File Manager, and Screen Peace as icons, and PM and WinQVT running in windows, and I have no real speed problems. I also use a lot of DOS apps that I have installed from the Program Manager -- the only ones that have a lot of trouble running are a couple games, notably SimCity. WordPerfect 5.1 works perfectly, for instance. On the other hand, when I recently tried an Excel 3.0 demo, it ran as slow as I have ever seen anything run on a PC-compatible. I think it was because my system was so limited. Since I already had a 286, there was no reason (and it was MUCH to expensive) to upgrade all the way when I was just going to use small programs in Windows and shell out to DOS when I want to run something. It works as a very nice graphical task-switcher and lets me run a lot of nice graphical-interface shareware programs, which I like because, well, I like GUIs. But, of course, if you are serious about Windows, and are buying a platform on which to run it, a 386SX would make FAR more sense, if only because you can then run in 386 enhanced mode with enough memory, which adds functionality. To be honest, the price gap between 286s and 386SXs are dropping, and I really wouldn't recommend a 286 these days to anyone -- a 386SX usually only costs one or two hundred dollars more, and the speed and the fact that it will likely last longer as a standard is probably worth it. As for me, though, I find Windows perfectly adequate on my 286. I do, however, plan to put in 4 megs over the summer -- That would help in running the nicer software I plan to pick up eventually. Adam Elman elmanad@leland.stanford.edu
dworshak@coral.bucknell.edu (05/19/91)
Regarding Windows 3.0 on a 286: I have a 286 with 1M of RAM and a 40MB hard drive, and have been using Win 3 for about 1 year now. Win 3 works fine by itself under 1M. If you plan to run any large applications, such as Word For Win or Excel, 1 MB isn't going to cut it. When running large applications, Win 3 starts to cache to disk very frequently, and overall performance is quite poor. The problem is made worse if you're also running ATM in the background. In my opinion, anyone buying a new system should get at *least* a 386sx. For those of us stuck with 286's however, Windows does seem to run adequately *if* given enough RAM. I don't know how much RAM is enough, but I would guess a minimum of 3 or 4 MB's.
aragorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Steve J White) (05/20/91)
In article <32974@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >I'd like to hear your experiences about running Windows on a 286- >based PC. Minimum RAM? Desireable RAM? monitor? DOS apps? >Windows apps? etc... I would say go for the 386-SX system. I am currently running Win3 on a 16 Mhz. 286 system. I experience frequent lock-ups and very strange occurrences within various Win3 apps. This summer I hope to upgrade to some sort of 386 system (maybe only a 386 plug-in board). - steve -- "What has been spoiled through man's fault can be made good again through man's work." -- I Ching <<< aragorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu >>>
cms2839@isc.rit.edu (a.stranger) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.111706.3172@coral.bucknell.edu> dworshak@coral.bucknell.edu writes: > >In my opinion, anyone buying a new system should get at *least* a 386sx. >For those of us stuck with 286's however, Windows does seem to run >adequately *if* given enough RAM. I don't know how much RAM is enough, >but I would guess a minimum of 3 or 4 MB's. 2 MB's is enough . i've used Win3 in standard mode on a 286 with 1MB , but it doesn't leave room for a disc cache . 2 MB's works pretty well . -- @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ "Imagination keeps the shadows away - Xymox @ @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@ @ a.stranger - CMS2839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu @
victoro@crash.cts.com (Victor O'Rear) (05/20/91)
Regarding Windows 3.0 on a 286 I'm running with 2 Meg 10Mhz 286, and I must admit it is slow. My principle application is Pagemaker 4.0, with the Novell Network loaded. On a 286 machine I didn't notice an appreciable delay when using a Networked version of Windows, but with PM, I've installed a local copy to give any speed advantage I can get. Does any one know the upgrade options to go from a AST Premium 286 to a 386DX (or 386SX if there is no noticiable gains for most Windows programs)?
oneel@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) (05/20/91)
In article <32974@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes:
I'd like to hear your experiences about running Windows on a 286-
based PC. Minimum RAM? Desireable RAM? monitor? DOS apps?
Windows apps? etc...
My feeling is that the base platform should be a 386SX and the
price difference between 286 and 386SX tells me to go for the
latter.
Thanks in advance.
--
Malcolm Sharp
Coordinator, Instructional/Technical Support
University of Southern California
School of Public Administration
I've been running windows on a 12mhz 286 with 2.5 meg of memory and a
SLOW hard disk for about 2 months. I've found this to be a good
setup. The hard disk seems to be the bottle neck at the moment.
There was a big difference between 1 meg and 2.5 meg. I've heard that
2 meg is a good minimum for a 286. When I put the 286 in 6mhz I find
it quite slow so 12mhz might be a good minimum. I run shareware
windows applications and do BC++ development. I don't have any huge
windows applications to run though. The multi-tasking is a bit slow
and dos switching is quite slow. I normally exit windows to do dos
work because with a slow hard disk it isn't much fun.
bruce
--
Bruce O'Neel oneel@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC/STX/Code 664berry@arcturus.uucp (Berry;Craig D.) (05/23/91)
sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >I'd like to hear your experiences about running Windows on a 286- >based PC. Minimum RAM? Desireable RAM? monitor? DOS apps? >Windows apps? etc... >My feeling is that the base platform should be a 386SX and the >price difference between 286 and 386SX tells me to go for the >latter. I have a 10-MHz 286, 640K, 40 meg drive, and while I *can* run Win3, the experience is frustrating at best. I can't run large DOS apps from Windows, for example, and some seemingly simple operations inside Windows (e.g., refreshing the screen when a big window is closed, exposing lots of little ones underneath) drag out to coffee-break proportions. I have also bought BC++ to attempt some Windows software development (cue laughter). I can barely get the sample whello.c program to compile (takes a little over a minute, as I recall. Once compiled, it runs fine. However, the Whitewater Resource Toolkit bombs for lack of memory. My feeling is that my system would do much better with 2-3 meg of extended mem, and I'm saving up for that now. By all means, get the 386sx if you can!
<NU055554@NDSUVM1.BITNET> (06/02/91)
This may be an late to followup on this line but I have been running Win3 on
a 286 for around a year and can relate some experiences. It is easy to say go
out an buy a 386, it is nice if one has the money, or the firm does not care
about depreciation and getting the whole useful life out of its products. Since
most do we learn how to make do. So for the ones who have the 286 how do we
make the best use out of it for new purchases I do reccommend more power if
you plan on multitasking Dos or need better memory management.
The first point is the faster the 286 the better, I use 16mhz mode and
like it. Below 10 mhz does requires patients, but value time vs money the
time to stretch during a redraw may be nice. The second point is memory add
memory to at least 2 meg. This will work nicely with standard mode, 4 to 6 is
better. The next concerns video drives, use the fastest ones you can find
and ignore the 256 color modes they slow the program down. Pc mag did a nice
job on what to do with video a while back, check that out. Read the optimizing
Windows information in the manual, it helps. Use at least a 28 ms hard drive
and keep it defragmented. Limit the use of backgrounds and all of the nice
things that windows can do like that require processor time. I found that
using windows specific program helps greatly. They work together very well and
limit the problems most people have with multitasking DOS programs. The new
windows 3 specific programs are even better. Even though many of these tips
cost as much as a 386, it is usually much easier to get most of these through
the money people as an upgrade than replacing an old machine with new one.
These upgrades have allowed me to function at a level I am very satisfied
with and it suprised me when I switched to a 386 running in enhanced mode for
a short time I was waiting for the 386. I had become accustomed to faster
response from my updated 286 than I was getting. I timed some operations as
2-5 seconds faster on the 286. I points out that optimizing the machine helps
as I am sure if had optimized the 386 like I had the 286 it would have run
faster than the 286, but for one months use I did not want to put the effort in
to that project.
The 286 has life left in it and the above hints can help you get that
remaining life out of yours. I have found it word well and frequently run
Pagemaker 4, Excel 3, and Corel 2 at the same time without any problems. In
the future I will update to a higher level machine, but I have found a way to
survive and not waste my machine.
Mark Hanson
Industrial Engineering
NDSU
Fargo, ND