Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!usc!jarthur!jmerrill
From: jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Jason Merrill)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Simple (?) Windows 3.0 Questions (Help Please!)
Message-ID: <8981@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: 9 Oct 90 23:57:46 GMT
References: <1990Oct8.185124.14940@odetics.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Lines: 89

In article <1990Oct8.185124.14940@odetics.com> frank@odetics.UUCP (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?)

For Windows programs, you won't have "full" multitasking on a 386, either.
If you want full (i.e. like UNIX, with job priorities) multitasking, you
need to wait for OS/2 2.0.  But under 386 mode, you can multitask DOS
programs, whereas in standard mode you can only have one DOS box, and it
doesn't run in the background.

>2. What else do I give up in 286 mode (if anything)?

The ability to run DOS in a window (and thus cut and paste), virtual memory

>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?

Nothing MS is copy-protected that I know of.  Anyway, if you are the
principal user (80%), you can use it on as many computers as you like; the
licence is one-site OR one-user.

>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?

The only programs that fail under Win3 are those that use DOS extenders
(Lotus 3.0, Mathematica, AutoCad 386, most other programs with the word "386"
in them).

>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.)

My windows subdirectory is taking up >7 megs on my HD, but I have several
extra files in there.  Windows Setup requires this much space:

386 Enhanced mode:  6,300,000 bytes
Standard mode:	    4,500,000 bytes
Network Workstation:  200,000 bytes

>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?

Win3 directly supports Mouse Systems serial mice; I don't know about the Bus
mouse.  I would imagine that you could use the Microsoft setting.

>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.)

I use Kermit in a DOS box under Win3...I only have problems with lost
characters on downloads, which I had under DESQview as well, though not as
bad.

>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?

We use Novell Netware 2.15 SFT in the PC Lab here, and have had no problems
other than that you need to exit windows to log in as a different user.  I
don't know about LANtastic.

>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?

The only difference between the 386DX and the 386SX is the data path, and
the type of memory used.  Internal operations are still 32-bit.  I'd need
more context to tell you what PC Mag is talking about.

--
Jason Merrill				jmerrill@jarthur.claremont.edu