• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

386/486 windows software

Will the program run in either 16-bit standard or real mode, or does it require 32-bit protected mode?

Obviously, the latter would require an 80386 at a minimum.
 
Windows 3.1 applications can be nuts to categorize and hard to test. Off hand, the following exist:

3.1 16-bit executable, runs in standard or enhanced mode, 286 compatible. Much Microsoft Windows 3.1 Office software is 286 compatible.

3.1 16-bit executable, runs in standard or enhanced mode, requires 386 or up. A program that runs in "standard" mode may still use 386 instructions, and therefore will not run on a 286. There are a few like this.

3.1 16-bit executable, requires enhanced mode and therefore a 386. The more powerful late generation 3.1 applications were like this.

There is also the occasional quasi-compatible program that runs on a 286 or standard mode, but with reduced functionality.

3.1 32-bit executable for win32s - With the addition of Win32s, Windows 3.1 may execute 32-bit Windows NT style executables that limit themselves to a subset of available APIs. The same executable may then run natively under NT and later Windows. Obviously requires a 386.

3.0 16-bit executables - an application sold as "3.1" compatible, may be backwards compatible with Windows 3.0. Like above they may have limits for standard and enhanced mode operation, but with the addition that a 3.0 application may also run under REAL mode Windows 3.0 on an 8088. Real mode compatible Windows 3.0 applications are very uncommon.
 
In a nutshell: Anyone wishing to run Windows 3.x programs on real hardware should use a 486, since that will run everything ever created for Windows 3.x, including multimedia programs with video. If you don't care about multimedia, then a 386 with 4MB of RAM will suffice.
 
Thank you, Chunk(G),SomeGuy,Trixter.

Yes, those do sound like sound like quite a bowl of mixed nuts.
My 286/12 only had 2mb of ram and would not run windows 3.1 properly.
I don't think a 286 would run most windows 3.1 applications very well.
Real Windows 3.0 applications might suit a 286 better.

This is neither a Real mode program nor Win32s application.
Although this this software may not be compatible with the Nut Shell,or a 286,
it might run on one of the the Later PCs.

When considering vintage hardware.
I was more curious of the performance requirements for tolerable multimedia.
For example...
From your experience, what would the ideal requirement be for a win3x game's Frames per second?

Since Only low hardware requirements were suggested,
I've adjusted the program so that it works somewhat faster.
http://turkeys4me.byethost4.com/programs/Svstp2v3.zip

Thanks
 
I never seen a 3.1 App that didn't run well with a 386DX/40 + FPU and 16MB RAM. Quite a few apps worked well with a 286-20 and 4MB of RAM (if they didn't need 386 code).
 
"Frames Per Second" is not a measure I would use with Windows 3.1. Besides, that is always specific to the application in question.

And performance of such applications very heavily depended not just on the CPU but also on the video card. I have seen a 486 kick a Pentium's ass in such regards because the Pentium had a crap slow (ISA speed) video chipset while the 486 had some fancy high-speed 32-bit on-board S3 video chip.
 
Windows 3.1 was the era that simple things like the speed of scrolling around a spreadsheet varied so much by which video card you were using. Even with a fast 486 you needed special expensive VLB cards to do things in 1024x768 in 32 bit color. Most of the early Windows 3.1 accelerators sucked in DOS and gaming.
 
Windows 3.1x did not come about until 1992 - which puts it in that same little window of the 486 DX2, and that last couple of years or so before the Internet became a big thing to the public.

A typical system of that era would be these.....

LOW END - 80286/10< or an 386 SX-25> with 2MB or more RAM, and a 40+MB HDD, typically IDE, with a EGA or VGA card in it (usually a low end VGA card like one of the later WD Paradise 256K cards). Typically with no sound card, and no mouse so a lot of people running these machines rarely had Windows 3.1x on them, if even anything that ran on top of DOS besides maybe XTREE or DOSSHELL. You're more likely to see one of these pre-loaded with Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect 5.1 for productivity, and then some shareware for games.

MIDDLE - 80386 DX 20MHz<, with about 4MB or more of RAM, a 80+MB HDD, typically IDE, and with a VGA or rarely a SVGA card in it (ISA, 512K). Usually would not have a sound card unless the person really loved playing games and was young enough to see value in owning such hardware. May or may not have a mouse attached to it (mice were expensive back then). Typically if you saw Windows 3.1x on one of these, it came pre-loaded and did not automatically start at Bootup (all versions of Windows from "for Workgroups 3.11" on back by default did not "auto-start" when the computer was turned on - that was a line added to the AUTOEXEC.BAT file to kick off Win.COM after all the drivers, TSRs, and other crap loaded). If they did actually use it they might have done that, but more often than not these systems still booted into DOS or DOSSHELL. My sister had such a system around that time (386 DX-20, 80MB HDD, 4MB RAM, 1.44/1.2, VGA card, DOS 5.00 w/ DOSSHELL loading at startup and NO Windows 3.1x).

HIGH END - Pretty much anything 486 DX and up. Usually with 8MB or rarely 16MB of RAM, a 150+ MB HDD, VGA or SVGA card, and possibly also a sound card and one of those goofey old Tray-loader oddball interface CD-ROM drives installed (usually marketed as a "Multimedia Package"). These systems were the most often seen with Windows 3.1x in use and the reason was because "Multimedia" - that was the huge buzzword just before the Internet hit the mainstream consciousness. Sound Cards, CD-ROM's, on-CD Full Speech Packs (Freddy Pharkas, or King's Quest V anyone?).

Some major games made use of Windows 3.1x, I know Sierra was releasing games with "SIERRAW.EXE" with it which was the Windows 3.1x interpreter for SCI Games such as Leisure Suit Larry VGA/5/6, King's Quest V, and Freddy Pharkas Frontier Pharmacist which I can confirm (I have it) has a full speech option if you ran it with the CD-ROM in the drive. Such games though can be a PITA to run because they required one change to 640X480 @256 colors for best performance, which was maybe not so much a problem back then with a ISA 512K VESA card, but in 2017 where those of us who have been at it awhile might have bumped our 486's up to have 2MB of VRAM (VERY high end) on a VLB Local BUS VESA card running at 800X600 @16-bit color - let's just say the games are unplayable because the backgrounds won't populate (because the game is expecting 256 color mode). Most people who played such titles though continued to do so via DOS because they either did not have Windows 3.1x, or were unaware that it was playable via a Windows executable because did-not-RTFM.

Toward the end of Windows 3.1x lifecycle it did become one of the most used products at that point because the Internet was synonymous in the mainstream with a computer running Microsoft Windows, and being as that was around 1995, most people opted just to get a brand new, debugged, Socket 5 Pentium I system with Windows 95 instead of keeping their older 486 system for the task. I think that was one of the most major, if not the most important paradigm shift in the lifetime of the PC desktop genre. Only 2 years before most people used DOS and used DOS applications, and Windows 3.1x was a mere accessory at best, then by 1995, if you had 3.1x it meant you could get on the internet without a lot of fiddling about and a lot of asking around because a bunch of people around you would tell you "You can't get the internet on DOS, DOS is old, throw away your old AT, buy a Pentium!".
 
Although I enjoy the pedagogical and calculating minds of this group,
I enjoy vintage hardware also.

Thank you, Unknown_K. I'll try a 386DX/40 with 16mb of ram.
What multimedia applications have you tested on one?

I have never used a 286/20 what windows 3.1 games run on them?


SomeGuy, I thought that the FPS (of an *.avi for example) was of some importance.

Some graphics accelerators may be only polygon accelerators.
Look at Intel 3dr on win3x.
For example (gtwt4d1.zip) http://www.glorioustrainwrecks.com/node/4781

Although there may be egregious examples of slow video cards,
I was more curious of veteran hardware in action.


Software often comes with recommended or miniumum requirements specified.
In judging my own software, I am uncertain.

Hardware configurations are so variant.
would you place http://turkeys4me.byethost4.com/programs/Svstp2v3.zip
as operational on your particular "Later PC"?
Could you list an applications similar performance on particular hardware?

To simplify Frames per second,
I have incorporated a FPS counter into the border of the application.


I am sorry if I have confused you, Trixter.
Thank you for answering my questions.
Although this particular software did not originate on windows 3.x, it should be compatible.
Would you say that it is suitable for one of the "Later PCs"?


Thank you, Mad-Mike.
Yes, I had noted that windows 3.1x is mainly for the Later PCs.
MS-DOS 6.22 and win3x can easily handle 64mb of ram.
Because this is the "Later PCs" section, the 286 is counted out.
 
Windows 3.x games for a 286 include most of the various Windows Entertainment Packs and similar tiny games and a swarm of shareware written in Visual Basic. Unless you need large memory allocations, a fast 286 will match up well against similarly clocked 386s.

For system requirements, I would suggest finding a system that seems to barely play it and then bump up to the next better commonly available system. So if a tightly configured 486-66 can do it, make the recommendation for a 486-100 or Pentium. This will save a lot of effort on troubleshooting systems that are marginal.
 
Thanks, krebizfan.
Without a doubt the 286 is one of "PCs and Clones".
The Pentium are of a different class... and forum section.

I'm not sure if I can bear swarms of shareware and VBees on clones of XTs .

Since few have an operable 386 with any teeth, I'll just go with 486/33.
 
@Trixter and @ Mad-Mike: That was very informative. Thanx guys.

I have a 486 build in progress (well, pending). It will get a custom variant of Linux, but now you gave me an idea to keep a disk or a partition for experimenting with Win 3.1 too.

Sorry @op for interrupting the topic flow. :) One thing I like about this forum is that you can read a lot of useful stuff. I was just randomly browsing unread topics and found this one very interesting.
 
watlers_world said:
Thanks, krebizfan.
Without a doubt the 286 is one of "PCs and Clones".
The Pentium are of a different class... and forum section.

I'm not sure if I can bear swarms of shareware and VBees on clones of XTs .

Since few have an operable 386 with any teeth, I'll just go with 486/33.
Click to expand...

I think that's one of the crazy things about Windows 3.x in general all around - it was a version of Windows compatible with All three major generations of "Vintage" PC Hardware - just at home between my 3 vintage boxes I have

1985 Tandy 1000A - a 4.77 MHz 8088 based PC Jr. clone in a more traditional Desktop type arrangement with 640K RAM, and it has Windows 3.0 installed on it (which runs very slow, but it works in REAL mode)

Windows 3.0 was the first version of Windows I owned myself (about 15 years after it came out, LOL) and I remember the big deal in that 1" thick manual it came with was that it had three operating modes - REAL Mode, which was for the 8088/8086/80186, PROTECTED mode for 286 Processors (this I can confirm as the 286 below also has 3.0 on it), and 386 Enhanced mode for the 386+ CPU which the big deal IIRC correctly was that it could run multiple DOS applications simultaneously as a "Virtual 8086" and could run multiple windows applications at the same time with the inactive window in the background still doing things.

1989 GEM Computer Products 286 - A 12MHz 286 with a Co-Processor, 6MB of RAM, 540MB HDD, DOS 6.22, and it has Windows 3.0, and Windows 3.1 installed on it. TBH, Windows 3.1 runs GREAT on this old computer. It's actually my favorite computer to play the Entertainment Packs on like Jezzball. It also is a bit faster to boot into Windows 3.1 than my 486 in some regards to Windows 3.1x because I don't use it for internet access or any of that other stuff that uses a ton of special drivers being a pretty bog-standard AT clone for the most part. But of course it can't run a lot of Windows 3.1x applications, but for games it works great - things like Hyperoid or Chip's Challenge.

1995 FIC 486-PVT based XT Cased thing - A 486 Dx2-66 w/ 64MB of RAM, 8GB HDD (for this install at least), DOS 6.22, and Windows For Workgroups 3.11. This is the most capable of the rigs, but it also bogs down boot time because it has a special "Super I/O" card in it that uses a special driver for 32-bit DISK and 32-bit File Access, a SoundBlaster AWE64 Value that is Plug N' Play and uses a ton of TSRs and other crap to work even in DOS, a PnP Linksys NIC, a VLB graphics card using custom drivers (S3 805 VLB w/ 2MB VRAM - running at 800x600 @16 Million Colors usually - though I've had it up to 1280X1024 @ 256 colors before though my LCD REALLY hates that setup). All that crap really adds up. It has internet access, is networked (my Windows 10 machine can access it, but then it can on the other two through other means (Microsoft Network Client 3.0 on the 286 and Mike Brutman's mTCP suite in the Tandy's case), has Win32S, WinG, and all sorts of other crap installed, has Microsoft Office 4.1 with the bookshelf on it, and all kinds of video and graphics players (I could play AVI movies on this thing if I wanted to, and have done so). For as capable as it is though, it has it's setbacks of a long boot time, and sometimes it will crash because I really do push this thing to it's utter limits on a regular basis from all counts. But it will run darn near anything Win 3.1x that I could throw at it. Actually, it's beefy enough to run Diablo more than comfortably when I put my Windows 95 hard disk in there (20GB WD).

I kind of feel 3.1 is a valid subject in PC's and Clones, 386/486, and Later PC's because it kind of overlaps.

Also, not a lot of people know this, but Windows 3.1x and the 486 processor soldiered on well into 2007 and even beyond as an embedded applications computer setup - there was even a post recently in PC's and Clones about a Guitar Effects pedal manufacturer who is still using Windows 3.1x in their factory to make guitar effects pedals. Intel and Microsoft stopped making and supporting their respective products in 2007, but I hear there are still some smaller 3rd party manufacturers making new 486 chips, but most embedded computing has gone to Windows 95 or better when possible these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top