What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
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?
- LangsamSpieler
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
I think from 81, because on 73g are 1 MB RAM and a 286 CPU enough for runnig but i'm not sure
416175:38 BetaArchive Registration
416176:06 First BetaArchive Post
4251811:32 Archive Access Granted
416176:06 First BetaArchive Post
4251811:32 Archive Access Granted
- TheCollector1988
- Donator
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:11 am
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
not even 73g or earlier can run in a 286...
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
Seeing as Chicago utilized the VMM extension on the 386 - no builds supported the 286.
16 years of BA experience; I refurbish old electronics, and archive diskettes with a KryoFlux. My posting history is 16 years of educated speculation and autism.
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
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
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
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
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.
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.
All roads lead to Neptune™
KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks
KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
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.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 days of the 286 had already sunset.
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." – Henry Spencer
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
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/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.
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
Well, be my guest. Fire up an emulator emulating a 286 machine and try to get Chicago up and running on it.
All roads lead to Neptune™
KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks
KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks
- oscareczek
- Posts: 700
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:37 pm
- Location: Poland
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
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.
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
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: 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:
Was the 286 intended to be supported (hence the 286 ega modes) or was it leftovers from Windows 3.1?
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: 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:
Was the 286 intended to be supported (hence the 286 ega modes) or was it leftovers from Windows 3.1?
- SoftPCMuseum
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:15 am
- Contact:
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
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.ATeamInc wrote:Also, I found this: http://drivers.downloadatoz.com/vendor_ ... indows-95/
Latest release of Virtual Computer emulator available here:
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewt ... 72&t=39197
- LangsamSpieler
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
I think the result will be a Windows 3.1
416175:38 BetaArchive Registration
416176:06 First BetaArchive Post
4251811:32 Archive Access Granted
416176:06 First BetaArchive Post
4251811:32 Archive Access Granted
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
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.
- LangsamSpieler
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:38 pm
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
Let's hope the best thing for Chicago
416175:38 BetaArchive Registration
416176:06 First BetaArchive Post
4251811:32 Archive Access Granted
416176:06 First BetaArchive Post
4251811:32 Archive Access Granted
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
The whole point of Chicago was a consumer 32bit (ish) desktop OS.
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.
Code: Select all
CLOCK32.EXE: PE executable for MS Windows (GUI) Intel 80386 32-bit
NOTE32.EXE: PE executable for MS Windows (GUI) Intel 80386 32-bit
The 286 was never the target of Chicago.
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." – Henry Spencer
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
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.LangsamSpieler wrote:I think the result will be a Windows 3.1
(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.)
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
Shifting gears a little, would it be possible to run any Chicago builds on an AT that has one of those InBoard accelerators permitting a 386 (or 486DLC, I suppose) to run on it? I imagine if the CPU identified itself as so, and since wikipedia alleges that the InBoard AT models would permit 3.1 to run, surely an early Chicago build would boot.
This would be one potential route around the 286 limitation, albeit expensive if you don't already have one of those boards.
This would be one potential route around the 286 limitation, albeit expensive if you don't already have one of those boards.
- SoftPCMuseum
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:15 am
- Contact:
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
Yes, but that would still be running it on an 80386-based machine or higher. The question here was whether it could be run on an 80286 CPU. The answer to that is that Windows 95 is a 32-bit operating system which requires at least an 80386 CPU or higher.retr0pimp wrote:Shifting gears a little, would it be possible to run any Chicago builds on an AT that has one of those InBoard accelerators permitting a 386 (or 486DLC, I suppose) to run on it? I imagine if the CPU identified itself as so, and since wikipedia alleges that the InBoard AT models would permit 3.1 to run, surely an early Chicago build would boot.
This would be one potential route around the 286 limitation, albeit expensive if you don't already have one of those boards.
Latest release of Virtual Computer emulator available here:
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewt ... 72&t=39197
- os2fan2
- Donator
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:12 am
- Location: Brisbane, Queensland
- Contact:
Re: What build of Windows 95 dropped 286 support?
Win 3,11 runs in standard mode. It's wfw 3,11 that doesn't.