• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Win 3.1 question

T

Terry Yager

Veteran Member
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
8,763
Location
Saginaw, MI, USA 48601
Can Win 3.1 be run on a 16/32 MHz '386 with only 1Mb of RAM (640 base & 384 Expanded, not Extended)? Would it only be in Real Mode? (I forget just what the memory requirements were).

--T
 
The lowest I have seen win 3.1 run, was with 2 megs.

Here are the 'official' requirements:

Windows 3.1
REQUIREMENTS
Released 1992
Computer: 100% IBM Compatible
Processor: 80386 or higher processor
Memory: 2MB + RAM
Drives: 8MB Hard disk drive space
3.5" / 5.25"Floppy
Sound:
Video: VGA
Controls: keyboard / Mouse
Operating System: DOS 3.1 and Higher
Other:


good luck!

chris
 
3.0 might have run in 1mb since that version was for the 286 and they usually had 1mb ram.
 
Re: Win 3.1 question

"Terry Yager" wrote:

> Can Win 3.1 be run on a 16/32 MHz '386 with only 1Mb
> of RAM (640 base & 384 Expanded, not Extended)?
> Would it only be in Real Mode? (I forget just what the
> memory requirements were).

Sure why not? The faster would be better. But does it
really need to be Win 3.1?

GEM would work better on either system (particularly
the slower one). Or XMGEM which GEM Multitasking,
heaps of applications available & the potential to write
more (with TP 5.5 & a special unit made for writiing
GEM applications! ;-)

Being a CP/M User, I favor Digital Research Stuff over
Microsoft! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.
 
"Unknown_K" wrote:

> 3.0 might have run in 1mb since that version was for
> the 286 and they usually had 1mb ram.

Some say (not me), that Win 3.1 runs better oin a 286,
than what a Win 3.0 did! ;-) Might have to track them
down & see what they say, cause I used to argue how
Win 3.0 ran like crap on a 286, so I just assumed that
Win 3.1 ran worse (if at all) on a 286, but they said
different.

Cheers,
CP/M User.
 
I tried to install Windows 3.1 on my PC AT at one time, but once inside the shell all I got were memory access errors popping up, despite having 2 1/2MB of RAM.

If you think about it, too, Win3.1 will never operate (atleast correctly) on a 286 because the 286 processor is not multitasking; can only handle one process at a time. The 386 was the first multitasking processor, and Windows 3.1 was the first multitasking-capable OS/shell that Microsoft ever made.
 
Windows 3.11 and Windows for Workgroups both require a 386 to run, "plain" Windows 3.1 does not require a 386. Perhaps the above listed minimum requirements are for wfwg or 3.11.

The minimum requirements to install Win 3.1 are:

286 PC (386 for enhanced mode)
MS-DOS 5.0 or better
5 MB of disk space (2 MB to upgrade from a previous version of Windows)
1 MB Memory (1024 Extended for Enhanced Mode)
EGA
Serial or Bus Mouse

How well Windows 3.1 will run on a 286 is debatable. I've heard both sides and can only conclude that much depends on what kind of apps you're going to run and how much memory they want. If you're going to try to run it on a 286 you definitely want more than 1 meg of RAM.

Terry, your 386 should have extended memory, not expanded. Extended memory is normally all the memory above 640K on a 286 or above. There would be no reason to have expanded memory on a 386 as I'm told that a 386 will use device drivers to convert its onboard extended memory to expanded, if an app needs expanded memory.

The only way your 386 would have expanded memory is if you loaded a special device driver in Config.sys to convert the extended memory into expanded.

Windows 3.1 does not have a 'real' mode, only standard and enhanced mode.

I know that Windows 3.0, if run with less than 2 meg. of RAM on a 386, will try to start up in standard mode. It can be forced to start up in enhanced mode with the proper command line switch, but I hate to think of how 'fast' it would run. I don't know if Win 3.1 will do the same.
 
Yes, those specs sound a lot more like what I remember. The machine in question is a Zenith SuperSport SX, and well, let's just say, Zeniths are kinda wierd. It won't let you setup the extra RAM as extended memory, only as expanded (244Kb). It won't use extended memory unless there is at least 2Mb installed in the machine. I have installed Win 3.1 on '286 machines with 1Mb extended memory before, but to run in enhanced mode it requires 2Mb, IIRC. I guess the best thing for me to do is go to my storage and dig out some of my old Windows For Dummies books, and start learning Win 3.1 all over again. (I never really used it that much in the first place, I ran DOS up until I started on Win 95).

--T
 
I decided to yank out the trusty Microsoft Windows Operating System User's Guide to get the full scoop on the hardware/system requirements for Windows 3.1, and they are as follows, taken directly from page xvi:

Windows requires:

  • Microsoft MS-DOS ® version 3.1 or later. (To check your version, type ver at the command prompt.)
  • For 386 enhanced mode, a personal computer with a 386 processor (or higher) and 640 kilobytes (K) of conventional memory plus 1024K of extended memory, 8 megabytes (MB) of free disk space (10MB is recommended), and atleast one floppy disk drive.

    For standard mode, a personal computer with a 286 processor (or higher) and 640K of conventional memoru plus 256K of extended memory, 6MB of free disk space (9MB is recommended), and atleast one floppy disk drive.
Click to expand...
There is also this note which follows.

Note To get the best performance from Windows, you should configure memory above 640K as extended memory.
Click to expand...
Now if you add up the RAM figures it gives directly from the book, it appears that you can operate Windows 3.1 with even less RAM than previously stated!

For enhanced mode, the total comes to only 1664K, while for standard mode, it's even less than 1MB; only 896K.

So I was mistaken that Win3.1 wouldn't operate correctly on a 286 system, however it does seem that it would not run to it's full potential as an operating system unless it were installed on a 386 or better.

So, therefore, Terry, taking information found in the 3.1 manual, if you were to install Windows 3.1 on your 386 system with less than 1664K of RAM, it would only run in standard mode, and not enhanced mode.
 
Yah, dot's what I thought, too. So there is some slim chance to run Windows (sort of). I guess the best thing to do is go dig out my Win 3.1 disks and try it out. Of course, it won't break my heart if it ends up being a strictly DOS machine, either. I can live with that.

--T
 
Hm. I just remembered that I own complete (?) 3.5" sets of MS-DOS 4.01, MS-DOS 5 upgrade and Windows 3.0. All original disks, but without boxes, documentation or any license keys if required. Unfortunately I don't own any suitable hardware.
 
MS-DOS v. 4.01 is exactly what came installed on the hard drive, but it's a special Zenith OEM version, with some extra utilities for the proprietary hardware in it (modem, etc.).

--T
 
Is MS-DOS 4 just as clumsy and ineffective as everyone said back in the day? I never had a reason to try it, although I've used both 3.3 and 5.
 
The MS version doesn't seem so bad. It's the IBM PC-DOS version that has the bad reputation, IIRC. IBM wrote it entirely on thier own, after the falling-out with MicroSoft, who also published thier own version. I'm not running DOSShell, which I think was one of the biggest offenders in DOS 4.

--T
 
hehe, DOS 4

i can't remember where i read it, but it seemed like every even version (2, 4, 6) were buggy DOS versions, and it was advisable to always stick with the odd versions, like 5.0

mind you 6.2 is good

chris
 
I've only heard bad words about DOS 4, but I strongly believe it was MS-DOS, not IBM's PC-DOS. Probably I'll never find a reason to try it.
 
Now this has repeaked my interests... I've dusted off my PC AT and fired it up, installing Windows 3.1 on it again. It has 2688KB of RAM, but because of its processor it won't run in anything except standard mode. And crumby black & white monochrome mode as well, though I don't understand why. EGA supports color!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top