Windows 1.x platforms...

From: Ward Donald Griffiths III <>
Date: Tue May 19 20:59:45 1998

Allison J Parent wrote:
> <>I like to bash Microsoft as much as the next guy, but their CPU support
> <>Windows CE is pretty good: x86, MIPS, Hitachi, PPC, and ARM, at least.
> <
> <
> <x86??? That would make a REALLY COOL sub-$500 PC. PPC??? So MS didn't
> <COMPLETELY cut it off.... I guess that if Intel (or anyone else) wanted,
> <they could make a 386/486 (AMD's ElanSC400 comes to mind) processor
> <based-WindowsCE system, requireing less effort to port to CE.
> SC400 is PC compatable at the 486 level, all you'd need is a bios. Then
> youd have to lay out a 4 layer or better yet a six layer PWB, integrate
> ram, and add all the other goodies that are not on the CPU. Working with
> the SC400 is NOT a trivial hobbiest CPU, most would be stopped by the
> package alone.
> Also MS never stopped supporting x86, everything they sell runs on 386 or
> higher (though it may be slow as mud). W3.1 still runs on 286s.

Of course MS never stopped supporting x86, the Intel 586 series is the
preferred platform -- oops, I'm supposed to call that Pentium.

Windows '95 _will_ boot on my old 386-25. It takes something over a
day to do so, since there's a lot of swapping out due to 8MB RAM. (Hey,
it's within the _original_ release specs). The shutdown process takes
only about two hours. I did _not_ try running any actual programs, not
even Solitaire -- there aren't that many hours left in my life.

The month I install NT Desktop on a '386 I will die -- sometime during
the several decades it takes to load.
Ward Griffiths
They say that politics makes strange bedfellows.
Of course, the main reason they cuddle up is to screw somebody else.
                                Michael Flynn, _Rogue Star_
Received on Tue May 19 1998 - 20:59:45 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:31:13 BST