Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:3142 comp.sys.ibm.pc:53463
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nghiem
From: nghiem@ut-emx.UUCP (Alex Nghiem)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Window 3.0:  Intel Inboard/386
Message-ID: <33059@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jul 90 18:25:39 GMT
References: <1990Jun24.223658.18009@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <32399@ut-emx.UUCP> <2915@gmdzi.UUCP> <32421@ut-emx.UUCP> <32971@ut-emx.UUCP> <3768@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Reply-To: nghiem@emx.UUCP (Alex Nghiem)
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 52

In article <3768@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:

>The first question I have been meaning to ask, is; Is there no version of
>windows 3.0 OR windows_386 X.Y (3.0 ?) for the inboard 386 or won't there be
>a version for the inboard386 with only the 1 MB on board ram ?

Windows 3.0 does work on the Inboard 386/PC in real (i.e. 8088) mode. However,
if Windows 3.0 does not work in standard (i.e. 80X86 protected mode ) or 
enhanced mode (80386+ enhanced memory management mode) I do not see how anybody
can justify the purchase of Intel's $1000 four meg piggyback board for the
Intel Inboard 386/PC since obviously Windows 3.0 cannot use it. In addition,
there is no version of OS/2 or Unix that can use the $1000 piggyback
board either. Apparently only Desqview/386 can use it.

>2. Desqview/386 has been compatible probably forever.  Every inboard I ever
>got came with a discount card for it (as well as windows 386).

However, Desqview/386 as far as I know, does not have a graphical user 
interface.

>3. Does this mean there won't be ANY new verisons of windows 386 ?

If there is enough demand or protests from everybody who owns an
Intel Inboard 386/PC then the company might proceed. However, they
spent lots of money to develop Windows 386 v2.11 for the Inboard PC
and sold only a few thousand copies. It would be nice if Microsoft
and Intel could develop drivers that would allow Windows 3.0 to
work properly on the Inboard rather than develop a special version
of Windows 3.0 just for the Inboard 386 /PC.

>4. Who ever in their right mind ever recommended using 4.0 anyway. 4.01 was
>available just about days later & incorporated lots of bug fixes.
>al

IBM is not in the habit of changing version numbers to reflect bug fixes.
If you have IBM DOS 3.20 installed on a PC, 
you have no way of knowing right off hand if
your version is patched or not. With Microsoft DOS 3.21, the patch information
is immediately clear. If you have IBM DOS 4.0, you cannot tell from
the ver command whether or not your copy has been patched for bugs either;
its immediately clear with Microsoft MS-DOS 4.01 . But the big stickler 
with IBM DOS 4.0X is that the memory drivers furnished with IBM's 4.0X
works with IBM hardware only and apparently does not conform to LIM 4.0 .
__________________________________________________________________________
This article is posted for discussion only. Any misrepresentation,
if any, is purely unintentional. Any opinion expressed or implicit in
these remarks are solely my own.

nghiem@emx.utexas.edu
!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nghiem
nghiem@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf!nghiem