creepingnet wrote on 2023-07-14, 21:14:

Windows 1/2/3.0 are pretty useless IMHO for my intents and purposes, only by which that I can do everything they can do in DOS on the same systems a whole heck of a lot faster.

It would be kind of neat to make some new applications for those APIs though and see maybe what could have been but never was - ie a basic web browser that's B&W that runs in Windows 2.x .

I'm not 100% convinced security is a total reason for the kibbosh on e-mail clients for legacy systems - I have a program called FLMAIL for DOS that actually seems to work okay with my Google Account on a 486 Dx2-50 with the security settings slightly reduced. The only thing going against it is SVGAlib - if someone made a text mode version, it probably could work on an 8088 or 286. More of the problem with legacy internet stuff is either the software pre-dated it, nobody who programs is interested in making a client and nobody who is interested in programming knows how to program their own, and what does exist is getting passed over by less capable more well known things (ie Arachne vs. LYNX vs. Links).

there should be a few more , we just need to search , first try softpedia then archive site then old cd's

I don't know what to do about upgrade of 286 toshiba to win 3.1 .....

BTW PC jr (IBM) have some nice working os's uploaded into the vm / in the link
Ps. I can post floppy versions of 2.03
or a manual for 3.0-3.1 or something , I have it download-ed
Usually I just use VC or NC under pc-dos , is it pc dos the problem? (should load 3.1 but it just run's out of memory after finishing the copying files part in dos-mode , never lauching gui install part)
my toshiba read's 1 mb at launch/boot-up , and I can use extra 4 meg sticks if I have HIMEM-HMA/EMS/EMM286 or something that sees the ram
(it's a pain sorting it all out , I read a few books on the subject).

Hi again, I've just read a manual for an HP Vectra computer and found out that there was an "HP AdvanceLink" software for Windows /386 and Windows 3.
It was some sort of corporate terminal emulator software, if I understand correctly.
It's from circa 1989, I think.

Edit: Picture attached.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewWave

Quick update. I did some tests with a clone of the Lo-Tech 2MB EMS card..
To what I can say, Windows 2.03 runs as expected. It correctly mentions EMS size in About dialog.
Word for Windows will also run fine and, err, "succesfully" consume 1MB of EMS RAM straight away when opening a sample document.. 😉

Windows 3.0 in Real-Mode is.. different.
It detects small page frame EMS (64KB window), but refuses to use it unless it has to be (conventional memory down to about 100KB).
And even here, mainly for storing data (available EMS reduced by 200KB in my case). Large programs can't be run, an out-of-memory warning appears.
That's different to using EMM386/MemMaker on a 386 and up.
Here, we get large page frame EMS (256KB window) and Windows will happily swap out programs.

For sake of completeness, I've also tried GeoWorks 2.0.
EMS was enabled, but I noticed no difference in performance.
Probably because it can swap to disk, already (virtual memory), not sure.

creepingnet wrote on 2023-07-14, 21:14:

It would be kind of neat to make some new applications for those APIs though and see maybe what could have been but never was - ie a basic web browser that's B&W that runs in Windows 2.x .

Hi, you mean something like MicroWeb 2?
In principle it's possible, because Windows 2.x is fully real-mode.
Packet drivers like ne2000.com or mTCP should be callable.

In essence, even Windows/386 is just Win2+EMM386+taskmanager.
The Windows part is separate from the virtual machine monitor an can be run on any PC - merely display drivers are special.
The /386 drivers won't work on other two versions and vice versa, I believe.

Also, it's possible to use Turbo Pascal for Windows 1.0 (and 1.5?) to compile Windows 2.x applications.
Maybe easier than fiddling with ancient Win1/Win2 SDK on DOS..
They require patching, though. There's an utility on the web.
Some information here: Re: Will program written in Microsoft Visual Basic 1.0 work in Real-Mode on Windows 3.0?

That being said, there are probably limitations. The Windows 3 resource format is different from Windows 2.
So icons on bitmaps meant for Windows 3 can't be used.

However, Windows 3 can partially handle Windows 2 resources (bitmaps will be monochrome).
So Turbo Pascal for Windows can be used with Windows 2 resources, maybe - when running the compiler/IDE from Windows 3.x.

Setting the Windows 3.0 "clean" NE header flags with Mark utility (or mark30 freeware) will make it run on Windows 3.x without complaints, too.

Long time ago (more than 10 years) I have created Windows 2.x universal driver for EGA, VGA and SVGA (800x600) 16 colors mode. You need no to reinstall windows, just change the config setting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F28wxrXlEow

Zelya wrote on 2025-05-28, 21:06:

Long time ago (more than 10 years) I have created Windows 2.x universal driver for EGA, VGA and SVGA (800x600) 16 colors mode. You need no to reinstall windows, just change the config setting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F28wxrXlEow

creating drivers for any older OS will keep it useful 😀 well, i guess it means the OS can function in some environments it could not do previously

as for general usefulness i'd still say yes - provided that usefulness is bound by the realities of the old OS

Can I try answering the original question? I know it's an old topic. But you keep bringing it out of pools of forgotten memories. 😀

According to my experiences:

Windows 3.0, even in real mode, has a big advantage over Windows 2.0: Microsoft Entertainment Pack! That said, most productivity apps that run on Win 3.0 RM are Windows 2.0 apps like early versions of Word, Excel and Ami for Windows 2.x. The later versions would require at least a standard mode. Although, some later versions of Ami might still work.

There are other Windows 3.0 apps that work in real mode. Not the big packages, but various shareware apps and games. They do, however, mostly require VGA. CGA driver, for example, is too low-res.

With standard and 386 mode, Windows 3.0 is prety usable. At least early nineties programs should work fine (around 1991/1992). Bar the browsers, as 3.0 predates WWW. But you can find early ftp and telnet clients. I think there might be an early version of Trumpet for Windows 3.0, too.

The best you can get for WWW is running a DOS based browser on top of Windows (and 386 mode should work the best for that).

So, kinda depends what you want to do and what your hardware supports. If you have 386+ and 4MB of RAM or more, Windows 3.1 is much more usable. On 286, you can still use 3.1, if you have at least 2 MB of ram. But 4MB would be prefered. on 8088/8086, Windows 3.0 let's you play WEP games, but if you don't need gaming; most productivity apps are for Windows 2.0 (Ami, Excel 5.5, Word 1.5) so you might free up a bit of ram by using Windows 2.0.

Windows 3.0 in real-mode is different. It supports EMS system-wide across all applications. Both Windows 2.x and 3.x programs ca […]
Show full quote

Windows 3.0 in real-mode is different. It supports EMS system-wide across all applications.
Both Windows 2.x and 3.x programs can use it, even in RM. You can also use large wallpapers w/ EMS enabled.
Windows 3.0 has about one thousand times the applications with lots of them beeing Freeware.
Maybe that's also because of Visual Basic 1.0, which runs in both Standard and Enhanced mode.

That's true. My experience with Windows 3.0 (only in emulator, so far, though) in real mode is that its use of EMS is seamless and "just works" for every app.

Also, Windows 3.0 in RM can multitask DOS apps. Although, every app starts in full screen. You can find out more about this, in this topic on BetaArchive:
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43644

bocke wrote on 2025-05-30, 10:53:

That's true. My experience with Windows 3.0 (only in emulator, so far, though) in real mode is that its use of EMS is seamless and "just works" for every app.

Also, Windows 3.0 in RM can multitask DOS apps. Although, every app starts in full screen. You can find out more about this, in this topic on BetaArchive:
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43644

I didn't know about the real mode DOS multitasking part. That's pretty cool.

About the EMS support in Windows 3.0 in real mode, it fascinates me, and I have some questions that I hope some knowledgeable people can answer here:

Does anybody know how Windows 3.0 manages EMS and how it presents them to Windows applications?

Do the Windows applications have to support EMS themselves through the INT 67h API?

Does Windows actually perform some of the memory management in EMS automatically? For instance, does it swap memory used by specific Windows applications between conventional memory and EMS as you switch between applications? And how does that work in terms of multitasking for real mode Windows applications?

Does Windows 3.0 have some kind of higher level win16 EMS API on top of INT 67h?

I'm asking all of this here, because I haven't been able to find a lot of information about this (apparently short-lived) Windows 3.x feature.

Thanks.

Still make my simple Word and Excel stuff with Windows 3.1. But it can be done with Windows 2.11 and 3.00. Do not see to use 2.03 because 3.11 is just cumulative update.

Does Windows actually perform some of the memory management in EMS automatically? For instance, does it swap memory used by specific Windows applications between conventional memory and EMS as you switch between applications? And how does that work in terms of multitasking for real mode Windows applications?

Hi, I think it depends.
On Windows 2.x (incl Windows/386) the Windows applications have full access to EMS.

On Windows 3.0, Windows is in control of the EMS "pool" of memory.
Here, Windows 3.0 separates into Small Frame EMS (64KB) and Large Frame EMS (256KB).

If small type is used, Windows 3.0 will hesitate to use EMS.
It will use it merely when conventional memory goes low.

By contrast, with large type, many applications can be loaded side by side.
It's almost like running Windows in Standard-Mode.
Large type is being provided by EMM386, if MemMaker was used.

Speaking under correction, it's merely my observation so far.

bocke wrote on 2025-05-30, 10:53:

Also, Windows 3.0 in RM can multitask DOS apps.

Task Switching shouldn't be conflated with multitasking. Notwithstanding, if the swapping is fast enough, it can certainly feel like multitasking. To that end, and on real hardware, configuring an EMS-based RAM disk for Windows to swap to/from accelerates the process considerably.

digger wrote on 2025-05-30, 11:34:

Does anybody know how Windows 3.0 manages EMS and how it presents them to Windows applications?

This is one of the better resources (specifically, Chapter 16):
https://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/micro … amming_1990.pdf

The gist is that for Windows applications that don't leverage EMS directly, Windows itself will still automatically bank certain data-types out to EMS if it's available, conserving conventional memory by so doing. In the small-frame EMS mode (which would be the more common of the two), this amounts to application code segments (up to 64K) and/or application resources.

So, by way of example/observation:

Calculator: 48K EMS used
Notepad: 32K EMS used
Paintbrush: 64K EMS used
Solitaire: 64K EMS used
Write: 64K EMS used

Sorry, I don't know inards of Windows 3.0 good enough to claim you are or you are not right on the technical level. Neither did I investigate if it runs the switched out taks in backtround or just swaps them out. But, basical user feel is there and it is somewhat practical.

bocke wrote on 2025-05-31, 07:35:

[..] Neither did I investigate if it runs the switched out taks in backtround or just swaps them out.
But, basical user feel is there and it is somewhat practical.

Personally, I started with Windows 3.1 and don't exactly know what to think about Windows 3.0.
Since it's the direct predecessor to Windows 3.1, it's of course important to history.
But it lacks so man APIs found in Windows 3.1.

On the practical side, use on an 8086 is limited, I think.
Profesiobally Windows programs of that time tend to want a 386 or require 386 Enhanced-Mode.
Like those 32-Bit applications being compiled with Watcom's Win386 extender.
Because, 32-Bit was all the rage by late 80s. CAD and database programs wanted to utilize it.

On other hand, Windows had been important to industry, telecommunications. At least where I live.
By 1990, there had been weird systems based on highly-integrated 808x and 80186 processors, also. Such as those made by Siemens, I think.
8018x SOCs, basically. As being used by MS-DOS palmtops. With internal EMS and PCMCIA etc.
On such systems, Windows 3.0 was the best there was at the time, maybe.
It replaced Windows 2.11, so to say, which was the early testbed for such applications.

By contrast, a bit later, Windows 3.1 was running fine on a 286 processor.
Version 3.1 was quicker, more feature complete - with the consequence of being a bit larger in terms of RAM usage..
There also had been easy to use development systems, such as Visual Basic (v1 runs on Windows 3.0, but 3.1 was recommended).

That's when Win386 extender wasn't always needed anymore, paradoxically.
Windows 3.1 "as-is" proved to be good enough to most applications, without needing full 32-Bit power.
Still, Win32s and WinMem32 API provided another alternative to Win386, though.

As far as multitasking is concerned..
On an 8086 platform, TopView and DESQView seemed to be popular.
The latter was best to be used with an EEMS/LIM4 expanded memory board.
Ideally, with back-filling support. Or a greater than 64KB frame buffer.

For plain taskswitching, DOS Shell or Novell DOS' taskmanager were an alternative, I think.
But I have little experience using them to be honest.

Speaking under correction.

Edit: Edited. Sorry about the bad wording, hope it's still readable.
What I meant to say was that Windows 3.0 was important as a runtime.
To be fully functional, a 386 was being recommended.
More than for Windows 3.1, maybe, since 3.1 wasn't as sluggish anymore, could use accelerated GDI on supported graphics hardware etc.

Edit: If I had to use Windows 3.0, I'd probably go for Windows 3.0 MME.
It has native soundcard support and other usful extensions.
It's like an intermediate step between Windows 3.0 and 3.1.
Unfortunately, it had dropped Real-Mode support.
Which is understandable, considering the memory constraints in RM.

If you started win Windows 3.1, you would ideally not think of Windows 3.0. 😀 3.1 is much better and more complete. You would think of 3.0 only if you were limited by hardware.😀 Especially the real mode version. Nobody would want to bother with that if they didn't have the need. But if you had a 8088/8086 machine or an 80186 portable, then....

I started with DOS though. Skipped 3.x completely and jumped to Windows 95 in 1996. I had chance to try out older Windows out of curiosity and especially when I started collecting older laptops.

With 1.0/2.0, I am aware some OEMs sold them with their computers, but around me that was rare. Pure DOS mchines were much more popular. I might be wrong, but my impression is that 1.0 and 2.0 were more of a runtime that even used to come with some commercial software. 3.0 is porbably first that was openly marketed as separate UI. Though, IBM an Microsoft were alrady starting to have problems in their relationship. IBM wanted for Windows to be a limited preview of OS/2, but MS wasn't necessary into it. This might be the reason they released 3.1 only year after 3.0, as they broke up with IBM. Probably with the options IBM asked them to remove. But 3.0 and 3.1 are still very close relatives. A lot of apps could be started (more or less stable) if you just use the right DLLS in programs directory. But it doesn't support WIN32s, of course.

Non-MME version might be better if you are resource limited as it makes the installation simpler and the installed Windows much easier to mod. Especially if you don't really have access to anyhting but the PC beeper.

Win 1/Win 2 are less of the complete OSes, but at least WIN 2.0 has a library with some useful programs that make it usable. Windows 1.0 is kinda cool with its tileing paradigm. Bu it's of limited usability in reality. Might as well use DR GEM. It also has a library with some useful software. PC GEOS works only if you are satisfied with what it comes with. The 3rd pary utilities are rare if you use the early versions.

The other thing is if you have an exotic display adapter such as CGA (yep, today CGA is pretty exotic as it's rare), you are even more limited what you can use. Windows 1.0/2.0 have the advantage that they look much better in CGA. Windows 3.0 prefers EGA/VGA. Although you could download MS Executive (file manager from 1.0/2.0) for 3.0 which worked ok (if used as progman and winfile replacement), but MS Executive is a lousy file manager.

I've used Windows 1.something and then 3.0. Windows 3.0 was, at the time, pretty great for running productivity apps. I remember using Microsoft Works for Windows 1.0 on Windows 3.0 and thinking to myself "THIS IS A GODSEND!!!" after using Professional Write for DOS for the last few years. WYSIWYG word processing and actually contemporary looking spreadsheets in a decent UI was incredible. Was it worse than Windows 3.1? Of course. It was better than anything else I knew at the time, though. Only until I was introduced to OS/2 3.0 did I realize how much better the blue team had it with OS/2 2.0. I was an immediate convert after that and stayed a devout Warper until late 1998 when I caved in and bought a Voodoo 2 for QuakeWorld..

appiah4 wrote on 2025-06-03, 06:05:

I've used Windows 1.something and then 3.0. Windows 3.0 was, at the time, pretty great for running productivity apps. I remember using Microsoft Works for Windows 1.0 on Windows 3.0 and thinking to myself "THIS IS A GODSEND!!!" after using Professional Write for DOS for the last few years. WYSIWYG word processing and actually contemporary looking spreadsheets in a decent UI was incredible. Was it worse than Windows 3.1? Of course. It was better than anything else I knew at the time, though. Only until I was introduced to OS/2 3.0 did I realize how much better the blue team had it with OS/2 2.0. I was an immediate convert after that and stayed a devout Warper until late 1998 when I caved in and bought a Voodoo 2 for QuakeWorld..

ah yes the first encounters with WYSIWYG do create an impression, i remember 'word processing', i.e. choosing fonts on write.exe or whatever it was at the time and being impressed

and anything done then can be done now (up to a limit, that being any external dependencies we might have relied upon back then)

If you started win Windows 3.1, you would ideally not think of Windows 3.0. 😀

Haha! Yes, good point! ^^ I still think 3.0 is interesting, though. Especially EMS support in RM.
My second vintage Windows was Windows 2.03, since my dad had it left in the diskette box.
I've used it on my 286 via PC-DOS 3.30 boot disk, to play Klotz! game (a Tetris game).
I've also liked the simple terminal application, since it also supported PC to PC links.
The same 286 was a hot-rod with multimedia kit running Windows 3.1.

Think of it as a 386 build from spare parts, essentially. Same specs, essentially.
But with a motherboard that uses an older 286 processor instead of 386SX..
Windows 3.1 in Standard-Mode was the highest system a 286 could run in the 90s - besides say GeoWorks or OS/2 1.3 (they had no multimedia support though).

Looking back, Windows 3.1 felt like a very different "era" compared to Windows 3.0.
When Windows 3.1 was around, my friends and me had 16-Bit game consoles and Gameboys.

Everything was colourful, computing had just entered multimedia era.
The world wide web was going to be open to everyone. CD-ROMs were sold.
CompuServe had released WinCIM software for Windows (CIM also available on DOS, OS/2 Mac).

And screensavers! Flying Windows, Mystify, Starfield Simulation..
I saw them running on PC monitors in the showcase of computer shops! 😁
Thanks to Windows 3.1!

Okay, strictly speaking, the rare Windows 3.0 MME was first here.
MME was pretty much like ordinary Windows 3.1 in terms of look&feel, but without the new APIs.
It was comparable to the lesser known 80186 maybe, which was a lot like an ordinary 80286 but without new fancy features (internal peripherals excluded) .

Prepared some environment for writing code for Windows 2 in a more suitable form.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xYtwCnomw4

I use DOS 7.1 FAT32. EMM386 to enable EMS. Then dos version hacked real mode kernel of Windows 2.11. Then play few first windows games and first Word and Excel. Nice poweful time machine. With maximum hard drive space and maximum memory. No real need to run multible dos programs inside windows and 386 kernel is not so friendly with modernish Pentium/P2 computers with mutch memory.