Help needed: PS/2 or a clone
Adam and I attempted to set up a computer for the Win 3.1 museum exhibit. It didn't go so well... We tested a clone 386 (one that was in our warehouse expressly for this purpose) but its HDD was DOA. Then we tested half a dozen variants of IBM PS/2. Only one of them had a working HDD, but it's an 8086 which is below the 3.1 minimum specifications. We could not put that drive into the clone 386 because the drive uses an ESDI connecter. We probably have a suitable drive in the warehouse, but it was taking too much time -- we cant stop to restore a machine with the big show looming. There is no time between now and then (museum beta opening) for us to spend time gathering the right parts and all. Can someone loan us a ready-to-go 286 or 386 with 3.1 already installed and tested? We'll put it in the museum for the show weekend and then we will determine a museum-owned solution later.
I can provide a PS/2 model 30 286. I'll check it out, and load Windows 3.1. Contact me, off-list. - Alex On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
Adam and I attempted to set up a computer for the Win 3.1 museum exhibit. It didn't go so well...
We tested a clone 386 (one that was in our warehouse expressly for this purpose) but its HDD was DOA.
Then we tested half a dozen variants of IBM PS/2. Only one of them had a working HDD, but it's an 8086 which is below the 3.1 minimum specifications. We could not put that drive into the clone 386 because the drive uses an ESDI connecter.
We probably have a suitable drive in the warehouse, but it was taking too much time -- we cant stop to restore a machine with the big show looming. There is no time between now and then (museum beta opening) for us to spend time gathering the right parts and all.
Can someone loan us a ready-to-go 286 or 386 with 3.1 already installed and tested? We'll put it in the museum for the show weekend and then we will determine a museum-owned solution later.
3.1 is 386 but really 486 Bill Degnan twitter: billdeg vintagecomputer.net On Mar 28, 2016 11:28 AM, "J. Alexander Jacocks via vcf-midatlantic" < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
I can provide a PS/2 model 30 286. I'll check it out, and load Windows 3.1.
Contact me, off-list.
- Alex
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
Adam and I attempted to set up a computer for the Win 3.1 museum exhibit. It didn't go so well...
We tested a clone 386 (one that was in our warehouse expressly for this purpose) but its HDD was DOA.
Then we tested half a dozen variants of IBM PS/2. Only one of them had a working HDD, but it's an 8086 which is below the 3.1 minimum specifications. We could not put that drive into the clone 386 because the drive uses an ESDI connecter.
We probably have a suitable drive in the warehouse, but it was taking too much time -- we cant stop to restore a machine with the big show looming. There is no time between now and then (museum beta opening) for us to spend time gathering the right parts and all.
Can someone loan us a ready-to-go 286 or 386 with 3.1 already installed and tested? We'll put it in the museum for the show weekend and then we will determine a museum-owned solution later.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
3.1 is 386 but really 486
Correct.
I'm just beginning to get comfortable -- well, tolerable -- of the concept of having a 386 in the museum. :) But a 486? No way ..... ask me in another 10 years. :)
Windows 3.1 was 1993, by then you could get a Pentium, and certainlyin 1993 486 was the hot processor. You really can't justify displaying a 1993 Windows 3.1 system and be historically correct without a 1993 or 1994 system, too. Realistically the 486 was in its prime in 1993. I mean you could attempt to run an 80's 286 or early 1990's i386, but that would be more Windows 3.0 / DOS 5.0. Maybe as a compromise you should do a Windows 3.0 or Windows 2.0 (aka Windows 386) system. Hold off on the Windows 3.1 if the 486 is too new. I can understand that, but I don't think it's accurate to mix and match, you're either all in or I say hold off. -- @ BillDeg: Web: vintagecomputer.net Twitter: @billdeg <https://twitter.com/billdeg> Youtube: @billdeg <https://www.youtube.com/user/billdeg> Unauthorized Bio <http://www.vintagecomputer.net/readme.cfm>
486 is a good compromise. Best features to show off capabilities of Windows 3.11 and the last evolution of the classic proccesor design before the Pentium architecture shift. On Monday, March 28, 2016, william degnan via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
3.1 is 386 but really 486
Correct.
I'm just beginning to get comfortable -- well, tolerable -- of the concept of having a 386 in the museum. :) But a 486? No way ..... ask me in another 10 years. :)
Windows 3.1 was 1993, by then you could get a Pentium, and certainlyin 1993 486 was the hot processor. You really can't justify displaying a 1993 Windows 3.1 system and be historically correct without a 1993 or 1994 system, too. Realistically the 486 was in its prime in 1993.
I mean you could attempt to run an 80's 286 or early 1990's i386, but that would be more Windows 3.0 / DOS 5.0.
Maybe as a compromise you should do a Windows 3.0 or Windows 2.0 (aka Windows 386) system. Hold off on the Windows 3.1 if the 486 is too new. I can understand that, but I don't think it's accurate to mix and match, you're either all in or I say hold off. -- @ BillDeg: Web: vintagecomputer.net Twitter: @billdeg <https://twitter.com/billdeg> Youtube: @billdeg <https://www.youtube.com/user/billdeg> Unauthorized Bio <http://www.vintagecomputer.net/readme.cfm>
Maybe as a compromise you should do a Windows 3.0 or Windows 2.0 (aka Windows 386) system. Hold off on the Windows 3.1 if the 486 is too new. I can understand that, but I don't think it's accurate to mix and match, you're either all in or I say hold off.
Windows 3.0 is also pretty significant -- it laid the groundwork for what would come in 3.1 and, IMO, represented the first truly useful version of Windows. Thanks, Jonathan
Windows 3.0 is also pretty significant -- it laid the groundwork for what would come in 3.1 and, IMO, represented the first truly useful version of Windows.
True, but I think in our current situation (limited space for this exhibit) we should display the most famous version which of course is 3.1.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
Windows 3.0 is also pretty significant -- it laid the groundwork for what would come in 3.1 and, IMO, represented the first truly useful version of Windows.
True, but I think in our current situation (limited space for this exhibit) we should display the most famous version which of course is 3.1.
If needed I have pretty much every version of IBM-centric OS from DOS 1.0 to Windows 10. I agree that a nice 386 processor system would be just fine with Win 3.1 at least for now. -- @ BillDeg: Web: vintagecomputer.net Twitter: @billdeg <https://twitter.com/billdeg> Youtube: @billdeg <https://www.youtube.com/user/billdeg> Unauthorized Bio <http://www.vintagecomputer.net/readme.cfm>
Hey let's kill the whole Windows 3.1 idea and load Microsoft BOB. Now that was revolutionary. LOL. corey cohen uǝɥoɔ ʎǝɹoɔ
Bill -- interesting thoughts! I disagree that a 386 w/ 3.1 is inaccurate. Eventually we will show a whole range of versions (and other earlier shell products) but for now we have to pick just one.
participants (6)
-
Corey Cohen -
Dean Notarnicola -
Evan Koblentz -
J. Alexander Jacocks -
Systems Glitch -
william degnan