BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 30d, 0h, 41m | CPU: 37% | MEM: 2764MB of 4653MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:17 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Online

Joined
Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:49 pm

Posts
120

Location
RAMDisk

Favourite OS
5.01.2462
Considering Windows 3.10 can run on 286 processors, did the early Chicago builds support 286 (if any did), and starting from what build did it drop support for it?

_________________
A BLAST from the PAST.
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:29 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm

Posts
246

Location
Zurich, Switzerland

Favourite OS
Win95 4.00.224
I think from 81, because on 73g are 1 MB RAM and a 286 CPU enough for runnig but i'm not sure

_________________
My YouTube Channel
My Equipment for everything
Windows Kämpfer® --> Discord
No one can stop me as a agressive OMEN X Fighter and conqueror, be warned.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:59 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:11 am

Posts
3398

Location
Italy

Favourite OS
Windows, OS/2, DOS
not even 73g or earlier can run in a 286...

_________________
http://forum.softhistory.org


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:51 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:43 am

Posts
723

Favourite OS
SVR 2012R2/Win10
Seeing as Chicago utilized the VMM extension on the 386 - no builds supported the 286.

_________________
For the best, unscripted prank calls, check out prankcallnation.com!
Need disks scanned in the USA? I have a Kryoflux, and am willing to help get your disks archived! PM for details.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:01 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 pm

Posts
1403

Location
SE Asia

Favourite OS
MS-DOS 3.30a & Windows/386!
Windows 3.11 dropped the 286, as they had written a very aggressive protected mode disk access driver at this point on the way of moving into Chicago.

Although it's limited to the older sub 504MB IDE disks.

https://www.rigacci.org/docs/biblio/onl ... n32bda.htm

_________________
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." – Henry Spencer


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:51 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am

Posts
1280

Location
Slovenia

Favourite OS
5111
To be precise, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was the first to completely ditch "Standard mode" for the 286. If you try to run win /s or win /2, Windows will inform you of this change.

I think Chicago/Cougar itself was forked from WfW 3.1, and then the improvements from 3.11 were gradually merged in during 1993. But I doubt it was ever intended to support the 286 anyway, since that was a pretty old and limited processor by then. Even if design considerations are ignored, the performance would be abysmally poor.

_________________
Image

KRNL386 - my main site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog about retro computing


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:30 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 pm

Posts
1403

Location
SE Asia

Favourite OS
MS-DOS 3.30a & Windows/386!
Overdoze wrote:
To be precise, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was the first to completely ditch "Standard mode" for the 286. If you try to run win /s or win /2, Windows will inform you of this change.

I think Chicago/Cougar itself was forked from WfW 3.1, and then the improvements from 3.11 were gradually merged in during 1993. But I doubt it was ever intended to support the 286 anyway, since that was a pretty old and limited processor by then. Even if design considerations are ignored, the performance would be abysmally poor.


The next generation of desktop was always going to be 32bit. Originally the OS/2 2.0 that fizzled up then it became Windows 3.0 expanded and retooled.

The days of the 286 had already sunset.

_________________
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." – Henry Spencer


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:40 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Online

Joined
Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:49 pm

Posts
120

Location
RAMDisk

Favourite OS
5.01.2462
Overdoze wrote:
To be precise, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was the first to completely ditch "Standard mode" for the 286. If you try to run win /s or win /2, Windows will inform you of this change.

I think Chicago/Cougar itself was forked from WfW 3.1, and then the improvements from 3.11 were gradually merged in during 1993. But I doubt it was ever intended to support the 286 anyway, since that was a pretty old and limited processor by then. Even if design considerations are ignored, the performance would be abysmally poor.

To prove all this, I'll try some of the earliest Chicago builds to check whether the 286 is supported. Also, I found this: http://drivers.downloadatoz.com/vendor_ ... indows-95/

_________________
A BLAST from the PAST.
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:17 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am

Posts
1280

Location
Slovenia

Favourite OS
5111
Well, be my guest. Fire up an emulator emulating a 286 machine and try to get Chicago up and running on it.

_________________
Image

KRNL386 - my main site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog about retro computing


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:00 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Online

Joined
Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:37 pm

Posts
451

Location
Poland

Favourite OS
3.11 WfW, 98SE, 5.1.2464, LH4001
The site you linked (very random, but okay) has only BIOS and something under the mysterious name "Misc" "for" Windows 9x. It doesn't prove anything, just some bot found the files.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:33 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Online

Joined
Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:49 pm

Posts
120

Location
RAMDisk

Favourite OS
5.01.2462
And I guess I could call my tests sort-of a FAIL:
58s:
Does not support upgrading from windows 3.1. When using setup31.exe from the dos prompt, it first checks for setup.inf (which I copied from windows 3.1 /system directory), complains about networking, starts copying files, requests Windows for Workgroups 3.1 install disks (got around that by using the C:\Windows and C:\Windows\SYSTEM directories), and last errors out when trying to start complaining about vga.drv. Replacing the vga.drv from the Windows 3.1 install disk and trying to start windows (by typing win) simply exits Windows to a blue-ish command prompt.
73g:
Attempting to start from a dos 5 bootdisk complains about HIMEM.SYS being missing. Starting the setup with dos 6.22 (and HIMEM) does this:Image and attempting to start setup again results in lack of memory (for some reason).
Well, since it complains about missing files, I guess it can start in 286 standard mode but lacks the files to do so (hence what it did with 58s trying to copy files from Windows disks).
EDIT: I found this while trying setup31 on 73g:
Image
Was the 286 intended to be supported (hence the 286 ega modes) or was it leftovers from Windows 3.1?

_________________
A BLAST from the PAST.
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:37 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:15 am

Posts
117
ATeamInc wrote:
This would be because of the fact that 286-based machines (such as the one that you linked to) can easily be upgraded to a 386 or higher CPU in nearly every case using a CPU upgrade board (such as the Inboard/386 AT) or adapter, meaning that a 286 ROM BIOS naturally was still supported under Windows 95, even if the machine itself required a CPU upgrade in order for the operating system itself to work.

_________________
Image
Latest release of Virtual Computer emulator available here:
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=36646


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:51 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Online

Joined
Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:49 pm

Posts
120

Location
RAMDisk

Favourite OS
5.01.2462
Well, I got progress with 73g!
Image
The way I did it was that I started 73g in setup31 mode, allowed it to copy from the Windows 3.1 disks, but first I replaced gdi.exe from the chicago setup directory with a copy from the Windows 3.1 disk #1.

_________________
A BLAST from the PAST.
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:53 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm

Posts
246

Location
Zurich, Switzerland

Favourite OS
Win95 4.00.224
I think the result will be a Windows 3.1

_________________
My YouTube Channel
My Equipment for everything
Windows Kämpfer® --> Discord
No one can stop me as a agressive OMEN X Fighter and conqueror, be warned.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:19 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Online

Joined
Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:49 pm

Posts
120

Location
RAMDisk

Favourite OS
5.01.2462
That is what I thought too, so I decided to copy all the core-286 files onto the install directory and try running setup. But apparently I am still missing some files which I have no idea about. If anyone knows all the core-286 files needed to start Windows, feel free to leave them in.

_________________
A BLAST from the PAST.
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:21 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm

Posts
246

Location
Zurich, Switzerland

Favourite OS
Win95 4.00.224
Let's hope the best thing for Chicago

_________________
My YouTube Channel
My Equipment for everything
Windows Kämpfer® --> Discord
No one can stop me as a agressive OMEN X Fighter and conqueror, be warned.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:05 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 pm

Posts
1403

Location
SE Asia

Favourite OS
MS-DOS 3.30a & Windows/386!
The whole point of Chicago was a consumer 32bit (ish) desktop OS.

Image

Code:
CLOCK32.EXE:  PE executable for MS Windows (GUI) Intel 80386 32-bit
NOTE32.EXE:   PE executable for MS Windows (GUI) Intel 80386 32-bit


There isn't much on 58s in the way of 32bit stuff, but they do run on Windows 10 x64.

The 286 was never the target of Chicago.

_________________
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." – Henry Spencer


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:26 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Online

Joined
Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:49 pm

Posts
120

Location
RAMDisk

Favourite OS
5.01.2462
LangsamSpieler wrote:
I think the result will be a Windows 3.1

Well, the setup31 method returned a corrupted mixed file config of Windows 3.1 and Chicago 73g. What louisw3 said is entirely correct, Chicago was always meant to be 32 bit.
Image
(You can see the corrupted program manager missing all entries, I had to create a new group and call it main just to get the Main group to appear. Also, the Unknown user is another result.)

_________________
A BLAST from the PAST.
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?        Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:18 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Online

Joined
Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:49 pm

Posts
120

Location
RAMDisk

Favourite OS
5.01.2462
To add upon the last statement, upon finding the right file to add to allow 286 standard setup mode (that being krnl286.exe in the \mini directory), Chicago fails to start and exits due to a processor check which refuses to install chicago on a 286.
Image

_________________
A BLAST from the PAST.
Image


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS