https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBu0bSWI9eo

Wikipedia:
Users can bypass processor requirement checks with the undocumented /NM setup switch. This allows installation on computers with processors as old as the Intel 80386.[85]

I had Windows 98se running on 8mb ram with a 386, the mouse cursor would hop around and freeze any time there was some sort of activity

rmay635703 wrote on 2024-04-26, 17:13:

I had Windows 98se running on 8mb ram with a 386, the mouse cursor would hop around and freeze any time there was some sort of activity

8MB is not enough for Windows 98SE. Even with a faster Pentium CPU. You should have done the test with 32MB RAM for example.

EDIT: The video above is like that, just with Windows95. But there a super slow harddisk (notebook harddisk with 4200RPM?) was taken to make things worse. But yes, 386DX for sure will be slow, haha.

Grzyb wrote on 2024-04-26, 15:49:

I've just learned that Windows 98SE won't install on a 386 - the minimum is 486. Any idea why? Is this just artificial limitatio […]
Show full quote

I've just learned that Windows 98SE won't install on a 386 - the minimum is 486.
Any idea why?
Is this just artificial limitation, so that nobody complains that it runs sluggish on a 386 ?
Or it actually uses 486 instructions somewhere?
Is it possible to make it run on a 386 via some patch, perhaps something like 98lite?

I don't really care about using it on a 386, but it's hard to believe that a DOS-based pseudo-OS needs more.
Seriously, it's only updated Windows 95 !

Yes, I believe it is about that:
.... "Is this just artificial limitation, so that nobody complains that it runs sluggish on a 386 ?" ....
It is already slow on a 486DX2/66.
On the other hand I personally enjoy running Win98SE on 486 machines, but nearly always take an Am5x86 (133 or overclocked to 160) for it. It is ok then (for me at least), don't use it for gaming.

CoffeeOne wrote on 2024-04-26, 19:56:

rmay635703 wrote on 2024-04-26, 17:13:

I had Windows 98se running on 8mb ram with a 386, the mouse cursor would hop around and freeze any time there was some sort of activity

8MB is not enough for Windows 98SE. Even with a faster Pentium CPU. You should have done the test with 32MB RAM for example.

EDIT: The video above is like that, just with Windows95. But there a super slow harddisk (notebook harddisk with 4200RPM?) was taken to make things worse. But yes, 386DX for sure will be slow, haha.

I didn’t have compatible ram to install more than 8mb, honestly it ran better than it had any right to but I can report Windows 98 can run on less than 16mb

https://www.winhistory.de/more/386/winq.htm

OK, so the limitation is totally artificial, thanks all!

Grzyb wrote on 2024-04-27, 01:55:

OK, so the limitation is totally artificial, thanks all!

It isn't completely artificial: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20 … 506-00/?p=39463

Windows NT 4 dropped support for the 80386 processor, requiring a minimum of an 80486, so it could take advantage of this instruction. Windows 98 still had to support the 80386, so it couldn’t.

So how did Windows 98 manage to implement an operation that was not supported by the CPU?

Windows 98 detected whether you had a CPU that supported the new XADD instruction. If not, then it used an alternate mechanism which was mind-bogglingly slow: It called a driver whenever you wanted to increment or decrement a variable.

Also, if you have an extremely early 80386 chip like in a Compaq Deskpro 386, it could be an early version with broken and/or buggy 32-bit support. More about it on that same blog.

OK, but it seems that both 98FE and 98SE contain the same code for 386 support.
The only difference is in the installation program.

On the other hand, modern Linux kernels completely lack the 386 code - no way to compile a 386-compatible binary.
I guess it was the same with OS/2 Warp 4 and Windows NT 4.0.