Re: PC Transporter OS

["william strutts" <wrstrutts1@home.com>]

"Roy Miller" <millers@inebraska.com> wrote in message
3B4F0407.D5E23C01@inebraska.com">news:3B4F0407.D5E23C01@inebraska.com...
> william strutts wrote:
>
> > "Roy Miller" <millers@inebraska.com> wrote in message
> > 3B4E7A1F.523AE3EB@inebraska.com">news:3B4E7A1F.523AE3EB@inebraska.com...
> > > william strutts wrote:
> > >
> > > > The last version of Windows that would run on an XT
> > > > class computer would be Windows 3.0.  Windows 3.1
> > > > would only work on a 80386 or better.
> > >
> > > Windows 3.1 will run on a 286 or better. Win 95 dropped the 286 and
the
> > > 386SX.
> > >
> > > Roy
> > >
> >
> > According to Microsoft, Windows 3.0 was the last
> > version of of Windows to support real mode and
> > the next release of Windows they claim required
> > the use of a 386 or better.
>
> Is this the same Microsoft that said Windows 3.0 needed a 286 or better?
;-)
>
> I did a quick look, but can't find the info - however, my statement was
> based on ou first Windows machine, and IBM PS/1 with a 25 mhz 486SX and
only
> 2 megs of RAM. I seem to recall the docs saying that with that small
amount
> of RAM, Windows ran in 286 mode, it took 4 megs to run in 386 mode.
>
> > Windows 3.1 also only
> > came on HD diskettes if I recall right.  Windows
> > 3.0 came on 720K diskettes.  I looked into this
> > recently when I acquired a 286 machine.
>
> And what does that have to do with the CPU? BTW - my copy of Win3.0 is on
> 1.2 meg 5.25" disks.
>


The 286 machine I have doesn't have HD disk drives.
It is an accellerated XT.
--
--
William R. Strutts - wrstrutts1@home.com - Whatever!

C'est moi!  http://www.facelink.com/wrstrutts

Just hacking away...