Fwd: compaq's portable computer

From: Scott Stevens <sastevens_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Tue May 4 18:41:41 2004

On Tue, 4 May 2004 18:29:56 -0400
RMaxwell_at_atlantissi.com wrote:

> > On Mon, 3 May 2004, Scott Stevens wrote:
> > > I ran Windows 3.1 on frighteningly underpowered machines for a long
> > > time. My 8088 XT Clone ran Windows 3.1 in several configurations:
> >
> On Mon, 3 May 2004, Fred Cisin wrote:
> > You were probably running 3.0!
> > 3.1 requires extended memory (286)
>
> IIRC, you DON'T need extended memory to run Win3.1 in "Standard" mode,
> just "386 Enhanced" mode. Of course, "Standard" couldn't switch tasks
> or do much of what people expect of Windoze now (except crash). I recall
> the day I came back from the Rochester (NY) Hamfest with a $5 RAM board
> that gave me a whole 1MB on top of my 640K and the chance to turn on the
> Enhanced functions...
>
> Bob Maxwell
> - still running 3.1 on 486s at home -

I have noticed 'myths' and folklore about hardware requirements to run Microsoft stuff for decades now. I, for example, run Office 2000 quite adequately on an old 486 laptop that only has 32 megs of RAM. Something most people consider impossible. I ran Windows for a long, long time on my 8088 based system.

I remember upgrading to a 286 so I could have 4 megs of RAM, and even later upgrading to a 386 so I could run '386 enhanced mode.'

Windows 3.11 certainly required at least a 286, I think maybe even a 386, as it abandoned standard mode (if I recall correctly). Not that this Microsoft arcana is really that interesting.... I hope it's not ever going to be considered as interesting as the DEC and CP/M and what-not lore that preceedes it.
Received on Tue May 04 2004 - 18:41:41 BST