nghiem@ut-emx.UUCP (Alex Nghiem) (06/30/90)
In article <32421@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@emx.UUCP (Alex Nghiem) writes: >In article <2915@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >> >>No. Real mode is for 8088/86 or any of the other processors >>in Real Address Mode. >>Standard mode is running Windows applications in Protected Virtual >>Address Mode of the 80286, 80386 and 80486 processors. Enhanced mode >>uses the address mapping (paging) functions of 80386 and above and >>runs non Windows applications in virtual 8086 mode. >> >>Wolfgang Strobl > >Ahh..., then owners of the Intel/386PC (me!) have a real gripe with Windows 3.0 >for it appears that Windows 3.0 can run on the Intel/386 PC only in !!8088!! >mode! After downloading and reading the technical notes on the Intel Inboard 386/PC, I discovered that Intel has tested Desqview/386 on the Intel Inboard 386/PC has found it COMPATIBLE with the Intel Inboard 386/PC. Intel and Microsoft do not plan to release either Windows 3.0 or OS/2 for the Intel 386/PC, although Intel says that the Intel 386/PC does have hardware support for OS/2 (whatever that means!?!). Intel also advises against using IBM DOS 4.0 with the Intel Inboard 386/PC because they say that IBM did NOT adhere to Lotus/Intel/Microsoft Expanded Memory Specification 4.0 . They recommend the use of Microsoft DOS 4.01. __________________________________________________________________________ This article is posted for discussion only. Any misrepresentation, if any, is purely unintentional. Any opinion expressed or implicit in these remarks are solely my own. nghiem@emx.utexas.edu !cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nghiem nghiem@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu !cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf!nghiem
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (07/01/90)
In article <32971@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@emx.UUCP (Alex Nghiem) writes: >After downloading and reading the technical notes on the Intel Inboard >386/PC, I discovered that Intel has tested Desqview/386 on the Intel Inboard >386/PC has found it COMPATIBLE with the Intel Inboard 386/PC. Intel >and Microsoft do not plan to release either Windows 3.0 or OS/2 for the >Intel 386/PC, although Intel says that the Intel 386/PC does have hardware >support for OS/2 (whatever that means!?!). Intel also advises against >using IBM DOS 4.0 with the Intel Inboard 386/PC because they say >that IBM did NOT adhere to Lotus/Intel/Microsoft Expanded Memory Specification >4.0 . They recommend the use of Microsoft DOS 4.01. The first question I have been meaning to ask, is; Is there no version of windows 3.0 OR windows_386 X.Y (3.0 ?) for the inboard 386 or won't there be a version for the inboard386 with only the 1 MB on board ram ? 2. Desqview/386 has been compatible probably forever. Every inboard I ever got came with a discount card for it (as well as windows 386). 3. Does this mean there won't be ANY bew verisons of windows 386 ? 4. Who ever in their right mind ever recommended using 4.0 anyway. 4.01 was available just about days later & incorporated lots of bug fixes. al
nghiem@ut-emx.UUCP (Alex Nghiem) (07/02/90)
In article <3768@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: >The first question I have been meaning to ask, is; Is there no version of >windows 3.0 OR windows_386 X.Y (3.0 ?) for the inboard 386 or won't there be >a version for the inboard386 with only the 1 MB on board ram ? Windows 3.0 does work on the Inboard 386/PC in real (i.e. 8088) mode. However, if Windows 3.0 does not work in standard (i.e. 80X86 protected mode ) or enhanced mode (80386+ enhanced memory management mode) I do not see how anybody can justify the purchase of Intel's $1000 four meg piggyback board for the Intel Inboard 386/PC since obviously Windows 3.0 cannot use it. In addition, there is no version of OS/2 or Unix that can use the $1000 piggyback board either. Apparently only Desqview/386 can use it. >2. Desqview/386 has been compatible probably forever. Every inboard I ever >got came with a discount card for it (as well as windows 386). However, Desqview/386 as far as I know, does not have a graphical user interface. >3. Does this mean there won't be ANY new verisons of windows 386 ? If there is enough demand or protests from everybody who owns an Intel Inboard 386/PC then the company might proceed. However, they spent lots of money to develop Windows 386 v2.11 for the Inboard PC and sold only a few thousand copies. It would be nice if Microsoft and Intel could develop drivers that would allow Windows 3.0 to work properly on the Inboard rather than develop a special version of Windows 3.0 just for the Inboard 386 /PC. >4. Who ever in their right mind ever recommended using 4.0 anyway. 4.01 was >available just about days later & incorporated lots of bug fixes. >al IBM is not in the habit of changing version numbers to reflect bug fixes. If you have IBM DOS 3.20 installed on a PC, you have no way of knowing right off hand if your version is patched or not. With Microsoft DOS 3.21, the patch information is immediately clear. If you have IBM DOS 4.0, you cannot tell from the ver command whether or not your copy has been patched for bugs either; its immediately clear with Microsoft MS-DOS 4.01 . But the big stickler with IBM DOS 4.0X is that the memory drivers furnished with IBM's 4.0X works with IBM hardware only and apparently does not conform to LIM 4.0 . __________________________________________________________________________ This article is posted for discussion only. Any misrepresentation, if any, is purely unintentional. Any opinion expressed or implicit in these remarks are solely my own. nghiem@emx.utexas.edu !cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nghiem nghiem@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu !cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf!nghiem
chrisb@escargot.UUCP (Chris Bradley) (07/03/90)
In article <1990Jun24.223658.18009@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> gec@cscosl.ncsu.edu writes: >I have recently purchased Windows 3.0 to see how it runs on my Intel >Inboard/386. I was surprised to get it to run at all, since Intel had to >release a special version of Windows/386 for the Inboard. Intel didn't release a special verison of Windows - it was contracted to Microsoft. They modified the code. Rather than using AT BIOS calls they simply wrote their own routines. >I can only run the board in "real" mode since I just have 1 MB of memory (640K >conv., 256 ROM/EGA cache, and 256 Extended). I was wondering if any other >Inboard users have successfully used Windows 3.0 in the other two modes >(standard and 386 enhanced). Standard mode works about 50% of the time - Good luck getting it to work in Enhanced mode. In Enhanced/Standard modes, Windows 3.0 tries to access IBM AT ONLY BIOS functions which aren't there in the XT. The purpose of the INBRDPC.SYS driver is to provide extended memory interrupt patches and successful warm boots. >If anybody has use the 386 Enhanced mode, please email me with your >configuration. Also, remember that this problem only exists on the Intel Inboard 386/PC - *NOT* The Inboard 386/AT. If anyone feels strongly about having Windows 3.0 run in 386 enhanced mode on the Inboard PC, call 1-800-525-3019 and order FaxBack Document #9000. This explains Intels position fully. Also, call their BBS at 1-503-645-6275. There's a *BIG* discussion going on about Windows 3.0 and the Inboard PC. -->Chris UUCP: ..tektronix!tessi!escargot!chrisb "I didn't like the Mercury Sable, Phone: (503) 644-3585 (Call anytime!) So I bought a Ford Taurus instead!"
chrisb@escargot.UUCP (Chris Bradley) (07/07/90)
In article <3768@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: >The first question I have been meaning to ask, is; Is there no version of >windows 3.0 OR windows_386 X.Y (3.0 ?) for the inboard 386 or won't there be >a version for the inboard386 with only the 1 MB on board ram ? Yes, Intel has a version of Windows 386 (V2.11) specifically for the Inboard PC. >3. Does this mean there won't be ANY new verisons of windows 386 ? It depends upon what the users of Inboard 386/PC's actually think. The only thing Intel can do is push on Microsoft (or pay them) to make a version for the Inboard PC. If you own an Inboard, send a fax to their technical support number saying that you'd like Windows 3.0 to run on the Inboard PC. 1-800-458- 6231. If you're curious on where Intel stands on the Windows 3.0 issue, call FaxBack at 1-800-525-3019 and order document #9000. >4. Who ever in their right mind ever recommended using 4.0 anyway. 4.01 was >available just about days later & incorporated lots of bug fixes. Intel DOESN'T recommend it - it states clearly that "if you are using DOS 4.0", use MS-DOS V4.01. IBM Didn't follow the LIM 4.0 spec. If you try to put Buffers or Files in expanded memory (ala /X parameter) lots of problems can occurr. -->Chris UUCP: ..tektronix!tessi!escargot!chrisb "I didn't like the Mercury Sable, Phone: (503) 644-3585 (Call anytime!) So I bought a Ford Taurus instead!"