OT: Dell Dimension XPS 466V
Working on a Dell 486 computer. I need a RTClock battery, but otherwise it's running quite nicely Windows for Workgroups 3.11
The question of batteries is on-topic IMHO. Batteries in the long term, cause corrosion of parts that have constant current on them. This is true all the way back to 128K Macs. also, many batteries leak (not coin cells), that's not good either. If you add a battery pack, make sure you can readily pull it out when the computer is in long-term storage. Windows for Workgroups (Win 3.1 + networking) is worth preserving. It's a legacy OS now. It ran for many years in embedded applications (back ATMs) and Microsoft support only ended several years ago. Many consider Win 3.1 the first really "successful" M/S Windows OS product. If I had time and interest, I'd see about migrating Win 3.1 to the Heath-Zenith Z-100. That's a S-100 system that is somewhat IBM PC compatible. I don't recall if Windows was offered for that platform, later Zenith PC's ran even earlier Windows (I have those distributions). Herb -- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
Working on a Dell 486 computer. I need a RTClock battery, but otherwise
it's running quite nicely Windows for Workgroups 3.11
The question of batteries is on-topic IMHO.
Batteries in the long term, cause corrosion of parts that have constant current on them. This is true all the way back to 128K Macs. also, many batteries leak (not coin cells), that's not good either. If you add a battery pack, make sure you can readily pull it out when the computer is in long-term storage.
Windows for Workgroups (Win 3.1 + networking) is worth preserving. It's a legacy OS now. It ran for many years in embedded applications (back ATMs) and Microsoft support only ended several years ago. Many consider Win 3.1 the first really "successful" M/S Windows OS product.
If I had time and interest, I'd see about migrating Win 3.1 to the Heath-Zenith Z-100. That's a S-100 system that is somewhat IBM PC compatible. I don't recall if Windows was offered for that platform, later Zenith PC's ran even earlier Windows (I have those distributions).
Herb
-- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net
Win 3.11 is a 16 bit application, do you have a Zenith S-100 system with a 16-bit processor? Windows 3.11 is best run on 486's or early Pentium although you could eek out a usable system with 386 running as long as it had enough RAM.. Bill
On 01/19/2016 01:06 PM, Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
If I had time and interest, I'd see about migrating Win 3.1 to the Heath-Zenith Z-100. That's a S-100 system that is somewhat IBM PC compatible. I don't recall if Windows was offered for that platform, later Zenith PC's ran even earlier Windows (I have those distributions).
The Z-100 had a 386 version? Didn't know it went that far, I thought thwye were just 8088 or 8086 like clones. I'm pretty sure that Win3.11 didn't work on anything less that a 386sx. I had a several 386 machines (one Toshiba 386sx laptop, Network Associates Ethernet/Token Ring sniffer that cost $25k). They all ran Win 3.11. -- Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@linuxha.com http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
Not sure about 3.11, but I ran 3.1 on a 286. On Jan 19, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Neil Cherry via vcf-midatlantic<vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote: On 01/19/2016 01:06 PM, Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
If I had time and interest, I'd see about migrating Win 3.1 to the Heath-Zenith Z-100. That's a S-100 system that is somewhat IBM PC compatible. I don't recall if Windows was offered for that platform, later Zenith PC's ran even earlier Windows (I have those distributions).
The Z-100 had a 386 version? Didn't know it went that far, I thought thwye were just 8088 or 8086 like clones. I'm pretty sure that Win3.11 didn't work on anything less that a 386sx. I had a several 386 machines (one Toshiba 386sx laptop, Network Associates Ethernet/Token Ring sniffer that cost $25k). They all ran Win 3.11. -- Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@linuxha.com http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
I sure feel like I did that back in 1989 or 1990 or so… but memory is a really fuzzy thing. :) I don’t even have a 286 chip, let alone a computer
On Jan 20, 2016, at 7:49 AM, william degnan via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Chris via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
Not sure about 3.11, but I ran 3.1 on a 286.
ANYONE - show me a 286 system running Windows 3.1, I'd love to see that.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:49 AM, william degnan via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Chris via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
Not sure about 3.11, but I ran 3.1 on a 286.
ANYONE - show me a 286 system running Windows 3.1, I'd love to see that.
http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/showthread.php?40708-Zenith-Data-Sys...
For anyone wondering, we have one 386 in storage for displaying Win 3.1 in the museum one day.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
For anyone wondering, we have one 386 in storage for displaying Win 3.1 in the museum one day.
Why go through all that trouble just to display for one day? -- <strong>@ BillDeg:</strong><br> Web: <a href="http://www.vintagecomputer.net/">vintagecomputer.net</a><br> Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/billdeg">@billdeg</a><br> Youtube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/billdeg">@billdeg</a><br> <a href="http://www.vintagecomputer.net/readme.cfm">Unauthorized Bio</a>
On 01/20/2016 08:15 AM, william degnan via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
For anyone wondering, we have one 386 in storage for displaying Win 3.1 in the museum one day.
Why go through all that trouble just to display for one day?
Because it will take the rest of the week to get it running again ;-) BTW, I took it to mean 'someday' as opposed 'for one day'. -- Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@linuxha.com http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
On 01/20/2016 08:43 AM, Systems Glitch via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
ANYONE - show me a 286 system running Windows 3.1, I'd love to see that.
My first laptop was a Compaq SLT/286 running Windows 3.1. I don't have any pictures at the moment, but I'm pretty sure the laptop is still at my parents' house.
That might be something nice to display in the museum. I recall Windows 3.0 and a 286 (I wanted my dumb terminal back) but I will say that I am fortunate to not have had to live with a 286 and 3.1 (or better). We also had Macs at the time and they were clearly better. I could never really understand why people were using Windows at the time. Our Macs were the color Macs and were very expensive (I'm betting that was it) but they were reliable and the environment was completely consistent. The Mac applications generally shared the exact same key and mouse strokes so learning a new application was a breeze and the mouse and the keyboard compliment each other. On Windows, trying to use the mouse and keyboard in a consistent manner was impossible. -- Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@linuxha.com http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
We also had Macs at the time and they were clearly better. I could never really understand why people were using Windows at the time. Our Macs were the color Macs and were very expensive (I'm betting that was it) but they were reliable and the environment was completely consistent. The Mac applications generally shared the exact same key and mouse strokes so learning a new application was a breeze and the mouse and the keyboard compliment each other. On Windows, trying to use the mouse and keyboard in a consistent manner was impossible.
It was all about DOS, and having actual software to run. The Macs had good desktop publishing, but calling BBSes on them wouldn't be good (full screen full color Ansi with the real PC character set!) By the i386, you had rocking sound cards, tons of games, tons of shareware freeware and a huge underground. PC had so much more software just a lot of it on the DOS side. High resolution of the Mac rocked but Mac OS 1 to 9 .. File forks? I copied a file onto one from a PC that eas a SeaArc or SIT and the Alladin systems unarchiver can't see the file and... yea Mac OS was horrible.
On 01/20/2016 08:58 AM, Ethan wrote:
We also had Macs at the time and they were clearly better. I could never really understand why people were using Windows at the time. Our Macs were the color Macs and were very expensive (I'm betting that was it) but they were reliable and the environment was completely consistent. The Mac applications generally shared the exact same key and mouse strokes so learning a new application was a breeze and the mouse and the keyboard compliment each other. On Windows, trying to use the mouse and keyboard in a consistent manner was impossible.
It was all about DOS, and having actual software to run. The Macs had good desktop publishing, but calling BBSes on them wouldn't be good (full screen full color Ansi with the real PC character set!) By the i386, you had rocking sound cards, tons of games, tons of shareware freeware and a huge underground. PC had so much more software just a lot of it on the DOS side. High resolution of the Mac rocked but Mac OS 1 to 9 .. File forks? I copied a file onto one from a PC that eas a SeaArc or SIT and the Alladin systems unarchiver can't see the file and... yea Mac OS was horrible.
Ah, yes, I do recall that. I was fortunate not to have owned a PC until Linux was nearing 0.91. I had Windows for about a week (I used it at work alot). I then loaded Linux on the machine. I still have the machine in front of me (AT&T 6386SX/EL WGS). My previous machine was a 3B1. While I didn't own a PC, I built tons of them for other folks. I guess I was a Unix snob. Once Linux arrived I was still trying to figure out why folks wanted to use Windows. ;-) -- Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@linuxha.com http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
On 01/20/2016 10:08 AM, Neil Cherry via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
Ah, yes, I do recall that. I was fortunate not to have owned a PC until Linux was nearing 0.91. I had Windows for about a week (I used it at work alot). I then loaded Linux on the machine. I still have the machine in front of me (AT&T 6386SX/EL WGS). My previous machine was a 3B1.
While I didn't own a PC, I built tons of them for other folks. I guess I was a Unix snob. Once Linux arrived I was still trying to figure out why folks wanted to use Windows. ;-)
Geeks of a feather! Same here. In fact I STILL can't figure it out. At least it looks to finally be on the wane. I've always followed (and helped to lead, whenever possible) whatever direction got me a fast, graphical UNIX desktop system...whatever that happened to be in any given era. I had a 3B1 on my desk for a long time, then moved to a MicroVAX-II running Ultrix (well, next to my desk, not on it ;)). Then a Sun, then (linearly) several more Suns, then a few SGIs, then suddenly Macs became (to my view) the best way to get a high-speed graphical UNIX desktop system, around the OS X 10.2 days, on a G4. That surprised me, actually. I ran that up until the point where Apple started trying to tell me what I did and did not need, and I moved to Linux on x86. That was maybe ~4 years ago. That move surprised me too, as I never really took Linux seriously. (I was always a commercial UNIX guy) Happily that coincided with the time the x86 chips (Core i7, specifically) started to become nearly as fast as a decade-old SPARC processor, so I was able to get work done on it. No Windows, anywhere. I also don't hit myself on the head with a hammer. Same logic. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
As has been commented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x "Windows 3.1 dropped real mode support and required a minimum of a 286 PC with 1 MB of RAM to run. ... Some older features were removed, like CGA graphics support (although Windows 3.0's CGA driver still worked on 3.1) and compatibility with real mode Windows 2.x applications." So on my Heath/Zenith Z-100 with 8088 and Z80 alternate processors, Win 3.1 would not run. But Win 1.X and 2.X may in principle work. In practice, deciphering the hardware support might be difficult. In the Z-100 world, various hardware products (Gemini) improved IBM PC compatibility, those may be helpful. They won't add a 286 (generally). In the S-100 world, there were a number of 80286 or 80288 CPU boards. I myself have (and exhibited at VCF-E 8.0) a Compupro "8/16" system chassis which replaced the Compupro 88/85 (dual 8088 8085 CPU) with a Macrotech MI-286 (80286 and Z80 CPU). It ran all Compupro software without modification. That's CP/M 80, CP/M 86, and MS-DOS. The Z-100 also runs these as Zenith products. So THAT Macrotech system would in principle be a Windows 3.1 candidate. if it had a video card comparable to IBM CGA (possible). If the I/O structure was compatible. If interrupts can be handled in the IBM PC style. If, if, if...... Win 3.1 is not a priority for me, for reasons I don't see much point in discussing. I can understand interests in it, by the next (after me) generation of vintage computer enthusiasts. 'Nuff said, but I might add there's no particular hardware "target" for Win 3.1, as any legacy "100% PC AT compatible" will do (and emulators). That does not enthuse me, as a HARDWARE vintage computing supporter. herb -- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net
my Heath/Zenith Z-100 with 8088 and Z80 alternate processors,
8088 and 8085, my apologies. -- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 01:06:19PM -0500, Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
Batteries in the long term, cause corrosion of parts that have constant current on them. This is true all the way back to 128K Macs. also, many batteries leak (not coin cells)
I have had CR2032's leak though not common. From my investigation BR's are less likely to leak than CR's. I use name brand BR's for my computers. Picture of cell that leaked 2/3 down page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button_cell
participants (11)
-
Chris -
Dan Roganti -
Dave McGuire -
David Gesswein -
David Hoelzer -
Ethan -
Evan Koblentz -
Herb Johnson -
Neil Cherry -
Systems Glitch -
william degnan