Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!boulder!seri!wind55!marshall From: marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: Simple (?) Windows 3.0 Questions (Help Please!) Message-ID: Date: 10 Oct 90 17:29:54 GMT References: <1990Oct8.185124.14940@odetics.com> Sender: news@seri.gov (news) Distribution: na Organization: Solar Energy Research Institute Lines: 96 frank@odetics.com (Frank Merrow) writes: >1. It is my understanding the Windows 3.0 will work on BOTH a 386 as well as >a 286. (I will be upgrading systems in about a year.) However, I will NOT >have full multi-tasking while on the 286. (True or False?) And on an 8088 too. I'm not sure of all the limitations of a 286. Never used standard mode. >2. What else do I give up in 286 mode (if anything)? Virtual 8086s. You can't run DOS apps in a window or multitask them. >3. If I wanted a SECOND license for my 386 (rather than just "taking" a >second copy) is there a "cheap solution" to getting a second license or do I >have to put the $150.00 down again? (Slipping on my pirate patch for just >a second, is the software copy protected in any way?) Microsoft now allows you to put their products on as many PCs as you desire. However you get a card that you must have on you when you're using the product. >4. For both versions (286 and 386) can I fully expect the following >applications to work under Windows (in a DOS window of course): >WordStar 2000, Lotus 2.0, Quicken, MKS Toolkit, Microsoft C and MASM, and >most games. What about a DOS program that does direct screen writes? (My >guess is they "work in 386", fail in 286 mode) Probably a similar answer >for a DOS program that uses graphics. Mace Utilities and Fastback are >probably NOT a good idea under windows and Xtree "it depends on what >you are doing". Comments? I've found no problems with any program on my 386s unless they use protected mode. Can't help you on the 286 issue. I would never run backups or a disk optimizer while running windows. Do that stuff before you start Win to be safe. >5. How much disc space is needed (I am down to about 5 Megs on my system) >and will DOS 3.2 work or will I need 3.3. (Actually 3.3 would allow me >to get a second 8Meg partition out of my disc I have never been able to access >under 3.2.) If you're going to run Windows and Win apps, I'd suggest you have a minimum of 20-30 MB free before you get into this stuff. It really eats up the disk storage. If you don't already have DOS 3.3, get 4.0 instead. You'll get all your disk in a single partition. DOS 4 has been out for years now. Time to switch. DOS 5 won't be out until Summer. You can possibly get by with only 8MB free if you won't be running any big apps like Word for Windows. You won't get much of a swap file though. >6. I have a Mouse Systems Bus Mouse. Will that work (it is supposed to have >a Microsoft driver) or will I need a MS-mouse? Don't know. I've had zero problems with my Logitech Bus Mouse. >7. I have heard there are problems with communications software running >under Windows. I have Mirror III a CrossTalk Clone. I will have to give >up this package or run only under DOS? Are there other communication >packages available? (I need D210 and VT100 Terminal Emulation as a >minimum, plus the usual protocols of course.) It's not perfect, but it works for me. I've run Crosstalk XVI (non-Windows version) from Win3. Haven't tried background downloads though. >8. How friendly is Windows 3.0 with the various LAN packages. Eventually, >when I get my second computer (the 386) I was planning on getting >LANtastic so I could share Disc files between the two systems. Would >I need to change this thinking if I got Windows? Haven't tried that yet. I understand it's supposed to work with mainstream LANs. But LANtastic isn't one of them. I think others have made it work. >9. There was also one interesting statement that PC Magazine made that perhaps >someone could clarify for me. I was under the impression that a 386SX could >do EVERYTHING that a standard 386 could do, it just did it sixteen bits at >a time instead of 32. But then I don't know what PC Magazine ment by this: >"When the disk cache was not loaded or when extended memory was not available >(as on the 386SX test system with only 2MB of memory) . . " Does this mean >their test system must of only had Expanded memory? Or is there a 386SX >limitation I am not aware of? I was under the impression the difference was only in speed when running 32-bit stuff. Personally, I think my 385/25 is too slow for Win 3. I'm strapping on my kneepads now to beg my boss for a 486/33. If only Congress would give us our new money... Good luck! -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@seri.gov Senior Computer Missionary VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future