Windows 1.x platforms...

From: Ward Donald Griffiths III <gram_at_cnct.com>
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