Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-08-10, 19:50:

The reason I ask is because I dont know what the memory limitations are on old AT and XT computers and memory cards are hard to find and expensive.

So what amount of memory on an old AT computer memory card do you need in order to have a good computer for game play in DOS and Windows and Application support ? Or should you NOT run windows on an old AT 8088 computer ?

If you want a GUI you'll have a better experience with GeoWorks than Win 3.0 on XT class systems. I wouldn't even try to use Win 3.o on them.

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-08-11, 18:41:

debs3759 wrote on 2020-08-10, 21:00:

waterbeesje wrote on 2020-08-10, 20:11:

This makes Windows 3.1x run just fine on your AT.

More precisely, 3.1 doesn't run on all AT class computers, it needs a 386 or better. 3.0 runs on any PC, including XT.

Windows 3.1 DOES work on 286 class systems. I have it on my 286/12 with network support as I mentioned above.

Yeah, I looked on the wrong sites when I posted that 😀

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2020-08-10, 19:50:

The reason I ask is because I dont know what the memory limitations are on old AT and XT computers and memory cards are hard to find and expensive.

So what amount of memory on an old AT computer memory card do you need in order to have a good computer for game play in DOS and Windows and Application support ? Or should you NOT run windows on an old AT 8088 computer ?

I know this is pretty far back but this is my general experience

On XT's I typically avoid Windows because it's slow no matter the version, especially once you get into the ones that actually have a lot of software for them (like Windows 3.0) - Windows .30 on any XT is a pain except MAYBE if you were running a very late era Turbo XT at around 12MHz, even then, I'm not sure, someone else can chime in on this. Typically for XT's I stick to bare DOS and max it out at 640K, especially Tandy 1000's because I need that "noprint" TSR because I hang the machine hitting the "print" key a lot.

For AT's, 1 or 2 MB should give you the widest swath of usage. I have 6MB in mine, but I'm trying sick things like Arachne 1.97 on it (yep, Graphical Web browsing on a 286, gotta love it).

For a 386 I'd avoid Windows of any kind unless you can put in 4MB for an optimum experience. Typcially then I stick with Windows for Workgroups 3.11 because I like using the network capabilities.

Pretty much every 486 I use is maxxed out because I go as high as Windows 2000 Professional on those and I'm skilled at tuning them to run such a new and giant O/S. For most people 16MB would suffice, 20+ if you want to run Windows 9x comfortably. On one of my NEC 486 laptops I'm running 24MB and Win98SE with 98 Lite and it screams.

IMO:

4MB for anything 286-386.
16mb for a 486 (32mb if you plan on using 9x though)

And 64+ onwards for Pentiums

In general though I would say there really shouldn't be a reasion to hold yourself back on ram. Aslong as it's cachable by the chipset.

If using a system with an ISA card that uses memory-mapped IO below the 16MB mark, you would either need to have less than 16MB or enable the below 16MB memory hole option in the BIOS (if available) . The only card that I know of that requires this is the ISA Creative Video Blaster family . There are certaonly others .

Back in the day, when I still had 386dx-25 without cache, windows 3.11 works better on 8MB, as I was testing the extra 4MB on my stock 4MB computer for a business I was working with.

Cheers,