Reply 20 of 27, by Jorpho
- Rank
- l33t++
If you're not familiar with it, http://www.os2museum.com frequently has stories about old operating systems which won't boot on VMs or even on slightly newer hardware due to mindbogglingly obscure bugs, sometimes relating to things that don't quite match up to unpublished specs even though they should.
wrote:But we just linked to an 8-bit ISA expansion card with a 386 CPU on it, enabling it to run 32-bit software. The only question is […]
wrote:Real mode support has been dropped since Windows 3.1, so I'd bet on a definitive "no" even though I didn't search for any substantial proof to support my answer.
But we just linked to an 8-bit ISA expansion card with a 386 CPU on it, enabling it to run 32-bit software.
The only question is: what else does Windows 95 need besides a 386+ CPU?
The AT standard adds an extra interrupt controller and extra DMA controller... But would Win95 really need those?
Perhaps other small things in the chipset that we've taken for granted on real 386+ systems, that aren't in a real PC/XT, and can't be added via some 8-bit ISA card either?The wiki page does mention this: "Windows 3.0 and 3.1 (Inboard 386/AT model only)."
So I assume that means Windows 3.x already didn't work on an XT with Inboard 386. Which means the chances of Win9x running are slim.
I would like to know what exactly would be causing it not to work, and whether or not there'd be a way around it. I mean, perhaps with some alternative/modified chipset drivers, it may be possible to get it to work. You already have the CPU and the memory, so it must be something minor.Edit:
A quick search revealed this: http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/showt … ard-386-PC-quot
Apparently there *was* a special version of Windows 3.0 which came with drivers that made it work on a PC/XT.