dcl3@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Dan L'Hommedieu) (04/11/90)
I keep hearing about the 386 protected mode and some other 286 and 386 modes when discussing Windows 3.0. Will windows 3 run on my 8086 machine? I've got an IBM PS/2 Model 25 (8MHz 8086, 640K). Am I stuck or can I use new windows 3? -- Daniel C. L'Hommedieu III dcl3@shumv1.ncsu.edu ..Oh, and one more thing: PARTY ON, DUDE!!!
aaron@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Aaron Wallace) (04/11/90)
Yes, Windows 3.0 will run on 8086/8088 machines, but only in its "real" mode. That means that much of the new functionality of Windows 3--protected mode, virtual memory--will be inaccessable, although things like the proportional system font, desktop pattern and background picture are supported. Due to the fact that Win 3 uses a bit more memory and is a bit slower (i.e. since the menus don't use fixed-width characters), Windows 2.xx may be better for 8086/8088 machines.
larry@csccat.UUCP (Larry Spence) (04/12/90)
In article <1990Apr10.205344.6124@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> dcl3@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Dan L'Hommedieu) writes: >I keep hearing about the 386 protected mode and some other 286 and 386 >modes when discussing Windows 3.0. Will windows 3 run on my 8086 >machine? I've got an IBM PS/2 Model 25 (8MHz 8086, 640K). Am I stuck >or can I use new windows 3? Har, har! Windows *2.1* won't run on an 8086, unless you're into watching molasses in January! We tell our users that a minimum config to run a Windows app is a 10 MHz 80286 machine with 640KB to 1MB of RAM and a fast hard disk. Unless I'm mistaken, the Mod 25 doesn't have a terribly fast hard disk. Summary: if there was a Windows 3.0, and even if you could run it on your 8086, you wouldn't want to to. Graphical interfaces don't come cheap. -- Larry Spence larry@csccat ...{texbell,texsun}!csccat!larry
mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (04/13/90)
Which brings me to a curious point: as a computer architecture student, I am interested in what exactly makes it possible for a 68000 Mac to have a usable GUI, whereas the general consensus is that the comparable 8086 cannot. (Please, this is an objective query, no flames) My question is not about which one has the higher quality GUI, but as to what aspects of an architecture make a GUI more readily implementable. Is it segmentation that imposes a stiff penalty (Intel style segmentation.)? Perhaps the existence of so many video standards on one causes a lot of overhead? As a case in point, Microsoft Word on a 1 Meg Mac SE is fully functional and usable; Word for Windows on a 1 Meg 286 is unable to handle 4 different font sizes without giving a out of memory error. More importantly, how would one go about identifying architectural structures that most benefit a GUI? For example, I assume some OS person talked to an architect and stuff like TLB's and page fault interrupts were designed. Just shooting the sh*t Milan .