Fwd: compaq's portable computer

From: Fred Cisin <cisin_at_xenosoft.com>
Date: Tue May 4 19:01:22 2004

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Scott Stevens wrote:
> 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.

Part of the problem is that MICROS~1 refused to differentiate,
nor even understand, the difference between what was REQUIRED,
v what was RECOMMENDED.
For example, Windoze95 can and will work with a 386,
but MICROS~1 denies it. (a 386SX is limited to 16M of RAM,
which would probably be inadequate for Office)

> 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.

3.10 also required a 286.

Until a few years ago, I ran 3.10 on 286 machines and 3.00 on 8088s.
3.10 REFUSED to install on 8088, and REFUSED to install on 286 if there
wasn't SOME RAM above 1M.

I don't think that 3.11 needed a 386, but I don't know that for sure.

For anybody running 3.10 or 3.11, go to the CALCULATOR and subtract 3.10
from 3.11 (to see how much difference they acknowledge?)


BTW, it won't be on-topic for another 4 years, but,...
Windoze98 refuses to install if there isn't a math coprocessor present!
It has been speculated (and rejected) that that was in order to do
floating point calculations for that silly animation when it copies a
file.
Bad news: in another year and change, Windoze95 will be on-topic!


Would anybody want to buy a bunch of Windoze 3.10 BETA floppies?
Received on Tue May 04 2004 - 19:01:22 BST