Jo22 wrote on 2025-06-03, 10:23:

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 […]
Show full quote

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!

I saw After Dark on a Macintosh Classic at school, and then when our family got Windows 3.0, we bought After Dark for Windows (I probably begged for it). Maybe it wasn't great value for money, but then again, you didn't want your monitor to burn in! We had a colour monitor though, and I think burn-in might have been more of a monochrome thing, but I'm not sure that was well-known at the time.

But yes, all those other things were missing 😁

Here is someone from Microsoft demonstrating how easy it was to copy data from a spreadsheet into a document in Windows, which looks like it was actually version 1.x since it tiles the windows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4KRrZxwX78&t=651s

I just ran across this recently, and I think it's worth mentioning because it really was a benefit of Windows. Before Windows (I started with 3.0), I literally did this type of copy and paste with scissors and glue, although I suppose I could have gotten Lotus 1-2-3 to export to text and then imported that into WordPerfect (graphs would have been harder - what image format can 1-2-3 export as that WordPerfect can import?). DESQview could do copy-and-paste but it wasn't always quite so clean, and was no good if you had more than a screen's worth of data to copy if I recall correctly.

The description of Notepad as "a typical word processor" is funny though! I was happy enough with Write when it came along.

Zelya wrote on 2025-06-03, 19:27:

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

Nice!

I have a 20MB drive with Windows 3.0 with a bunch of files deleted from it, Borland C++ 2.0 with a bunch of files deleted from it and without any IDE, JOVE (a small Emacs-like editor), DESQview, and I can do some Windows 3 development on that, and enjoy it from a retro perspective but certainly understand why most people don't consider that "suitable", e.g. I miss having an undo feature 😁

doshea wrote on 2025-06-04, 11:35:

I saw After Dark on a Macintosh Classic at school, and then when our family got Windows 3.0, we bought After Dark for Windows (I probably begged for it). Maybe it wasn't great value for money, but then again, you didn't want your monitor to burn in! We had a colour monitor though, and I think burn-in might have been more of a monochrome thing, but I'm not sure that was well-known at the time.

Ah, right! After Dark, such a classic! ^^
It had a predecessor, I think, Magic ScreenSaver on Windows 2.x.
I've taken a video of it years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCV8OPVY-uE

I've also seen a DOS version of After Dark. That's so cool! Never knew it existed! :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvouwI2PjEg

Jo22 wrote on 2025-06-04, 12:52:

It had a predecessor, I think, Magic ScreenSaver on Windows 2.x.
I've taken a video of it years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCV8OPVY-uE

I think it's too late, that monitor already looks burned in? 😁 That's a nice setup though!

I've also seen a DOS version of After Dark. That's so cool! Never knew it existed! 😁
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvouwI2PjEg

Nice, I think at least one of the versions of After Dark for Windows included a DOS component, but I think it might have just been a simple blanker - I don't remember anything like that, which looks very similar to the Windows version! I wonder how compatible it was with DOS software or - worse - games?

Jo22 wrote on 2025-06-04, 12:52:

Ah, right! After Dark, such a classic! ^^ It had a predecessor, I think, Magic ScreenSaver on Windows 2.x. I've taken a video of […]
Show full quote

doshea wrote on 2025-06-04, 11:35:

I saw After Dark on a Macintosh Classic at school, and then when our family got Windows 3.0, we bought After Dark for Windows (I probably begged for it). Maybe it wasn't great value for money, but then again, you didn't want your monitor to burn in! We had a colour monitor though, and I think burn-in might have been more of a monochrome thing, but I'm not sure that was well-known at the time.

Ah, right! After Dark, such a classic! ^^
It had a predecessor, I think, Magic ScreenSaver on Windows 2.x.
I've taken a video of it years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCV8OPVY-uE

I've also seen a DOS version of After Dark. That's so cool! Never knew it existed! 😁
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvouwI2PjEg

I'm still stuck with my CGA T3100e on 2.11 (or 2.03)... and VC &NC or dosshell on PCDOS..
Top it all off the drive controller broke , so if Hdd will not see anything anymore than I need a plan for a reformat (oh well was not much there aniway).
It broke trying to install 3 or 3.1 .... no luck on any of them , keep running out of memory (nomatter what settings I use or mem gestionation apps).

ediflorianUS wrote on 2025-10-14, 19:34:

I'm still stuck with my CGA T3100e on 2.11 (or 2.03)... and VC &NC or dosshell on PCDOS..
Top it all off the drive controller broke , so if Hdd will not see anything anymore than I need a plan for a reformat (oh well was not much there aniway).
It broke trying to install 3 or 3.1 .... no luck on any of them , keep running out of memory (nomatter what settings I use or mem gestionation apps).

"gestionation" -> "optimisation"?

Windows 3.0 works fine for me on a T3100e with a total of 1MB of RAM (PCem, 86Box or real hardware), running on MS-DOS 3.3. If I recall correctly, real mode works fine no matter how the memory is set up, and standard mode works with 640KB base + 384KB XMS. I don't run anything particularly big in Windows though because there's certainly not a whole lot of memory free - I mostly stay in DOS, sometimes using DESQview (with the 384KB allocated to EMS in that case). In Windows, I've just run programs that came with Windows, and a LISP interpreter. I suppose that means that - on this thread's topic - Windows 3.0 isn't all that useful on this particular machine, compared to DESQview 😁

In terms of memory management/drivers, I think I used Windows 3.0's HIMEM.SYS, Toshiba's EMS driver, and Quarterdeck QRAM. I can check exact versions and provide boot configurations if you're interested; since MS-DOS 3.3 doesn't have a boot menu, I have a third-party utility which updates CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT for me from a list of configurations.

Good luck with your drive controller!

For me, Windows 3.0a works perfectly under 86Box emulating the Gigabyte GA-486L mainboard maxed out at 16 MB of RAM with the Tseng ET4000 emulated graphics card...which is enough to run Windows 3.0a in 386 Enhanced Mode and a 16 MB temporary swap file. 😀

In the Windows Memory tab of the Norton System Information in early versions of Norton Desktop, there is a bug that the total, used and available do not properly displaying more than 32,767 KB of total RAM.

Norton Desktop is running as the shell under Windows 3.0a and MS-DOS 5.0, btw.

^It could be that Windows 3.0 needs the WINA20.386 file that's on the MS-DOS 5 diskette set.
To run in 386 Enhanced-Mode, I mean. It has to be in root directory: C:\WINA20.386
Interestingly, I once read, the file is being handled by MS-DOS itself after typing WIN.
Windows 3.1x nolonger needs the file, I think.

The Toshiba T3100e has a 286 CPU, so I don't think any file is going to make it run in 386 Enhanced mode, although I certainly would have tried it anyway when I was a kid 😁

doshea wrote on 2025-10-15, 02:30:

"gestionation" -> "optimisation"? […]
Show full quote

ediflorianUS wrote on 2025-10-14, 19:34:

I'm still stuck with my CGA T3100e on 2.11 (or 2.03)... and VC &NC or dosshell on PCDOS..
Top it all off the drive controller broke , so if Hdd will not see anything anymore than I need a plan for a reformat (oh well was not much there aniway).
It broke trying to install 3 or 3.1 .... no luck on any of them , keep running out of memory (nomatter what settings I use or mem gestionation apps).

"gestionation" -> "optimisation"?

Windows 3.0 works fine for me on a T3100e with a total of 1MB of RAM (PCem, 86Box or real hardware), running on MS-DOS 3.3. If I recall correctly, real mode works fine no matter how the memory is set up, and standard mode works with 640KB base + 384KB XMS. I don't run anything particularly big in Windows though because there's certainly not a whole lot of memory free - I mostly stay in DOS, sometimes using DESQview (with the 384KB allocated to EMS in that case). In Windows, I've just run programs that came with Windows, and a LISP interpreter. I suppose that means that - on this thread's topic - Windows 3.0 isn't all that useful on this particular machine, compared to DESQview 😁

In terms of memory management/drivers, I think I used Windows 3.0's HIMEM.SYS, Toshiba's EMS driver, and Quarterdeck QRAM. I can check exact versions and provide boot configurations if you're interested; since MS-DOS 3.3 doesn't have a boot menu, I have a third-party utility which updates CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT for me from a list of configurations.

Good luck with your drive controller!

Thank'x for the Replay , "Gestionation = Ram Management"....
It always hung on 3.0 load screen , just locked up the 286.
What is Toshiba's EMS driver? I don't know what that is...
Aniway I am having now a broken HDD controller so till I fix that I can't really test anything....
I used QEMM or EMM286,etc , anyway no matter how I set up anything it never loads the GUI part of the install... or OS if I copy it. Keeps running out of memory (5 mb I have installed - 640+rest &CGA +4x1 Simms).
Never had issues under PC-DOS (7.0). - I tried bits and commands and all the mem settings I could play with in x amount of time (was absolutely in vain)
I am just headbanging to wall not knowing what's going on why most of dos stuff works , and win up to 2.11 works but nothing above that.
before the crash I tried reinstall of 3.1, anyways I had 3x1.5 gb partitions from main drive with Overlay app. (worked fine with dos and early windows 2).

If I pull the drive , and it still has a valid partition I will upload Autoexec.bat & Config.Sys - command lines. or the files if it's possible as a attachment.
All of this is Beyond my mental capacity to figure out (there is a problem I don't understand somewhere). I am thinking of trying GEOS , I wanted also to try the IBM variant of 3, OS/2 or / or something but I could never figure out how to launch the setup file after copying all the files to C drive.

ediflorianUS wrote on 2025-10-15, 19:05:

What is Toshiba's EMS driver? I don't know what that is...

See e.g. https://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/t3100e.html:

To use EMS from DOS, you will need the Toshiba EMS driver (TOSHEMM.ZIP). This supports the above system, plus add-on EMS cards which appear to occupy similar ranges of ports at 0x_2A8, 0x_2B8 and 0x_2C8.

Although I found TOSHEMM.ZIP, I don't think I'm using the driver from that. I can't check my notes right now, so I'm not sure where it came from, but it is called EMM.SYS and from looking at it in a hex viewer it says it's version 3.20 and $Rev. 3.24.

I used QEMM or EMM286,etc

I might be wrong, but I thought QEMM is for 386+, whereas QRAM is suitable for a 286. They're both from the same company.

anyway no matter how I set up anything it never loads the GUI part of the install... or OS if I copy it. Keeps running out of memory (5 mb I have installed - 640+rest &CGA +4x1 Simms).

I should say that I did the install in PCem version 16 or 17 rather than on hardware, and then copied the install over, but I only ever had 1MB of RAM in the PCem-emulated machine too, so you'd think I'd be the one with the memory issues 😁

When I say I copied the install over, I actually wrote my PCem disk image to the physical drive.

Never had issues under PC-DOS (7.0). - I tried bits and commands and all the mem settings I could play with in x amount of time (was absolutely in vain)

If you happen to try the Toshiba EMM.SYS driver, I think there are different versions for different DOS versions - I'm not sure how important it is that you actually use the version they say is for a given DOS version - but I don't think they have any corresponding to DOS 6 or later.

before the crash I tried reinstall of 3.1, anyways I had 3x1.5 gb partitions from main drive with Overlay app. (worked fine with dos and early windows 2).

I stuck with a 20MB drive (BIOS default) in both PCem and the physical machine, until I eventually used some old disk compression software to add a small virtual drive. I wonder if the Windows 3.0 installer could be upset by the relatively giant partitions it can see?

Perhaps it would be worth experimenting in PCem or 86Box - you can copy the disk image and restore your backup when things don't work, so you might be able to do experiments faster. It might be worth trying without the disk overlay, with different RAM sizes, different DOS versions, etc. Perhaps you could try to reproduce my results (I guess you don't need to find any EMS driver to do this) first, and then work from there to see what breaks it.

ediflorianUS wrote on 2025-10-15, 19:05:

I used QEMM or EMM286,etc , anyway no matter how I set up anything it never loads the GUI part of the install... or OS if I copy it. Keeps running out of memory (5 mb I have installed - 640+rest &CGA +4x1 Simms).

Sorry for the follow-up, but I thought I should mention some more things: I've never tried EMM286, but more importantly, I don't think EMM286 would help you to run Windows anyway, since Windows wants XMS. I'm pretty sure I just used the HIMEM.SYS that came with Windows 3.0. I have a note that when I run Windows, I use HIMEM.SYS rather than QEXT.SYS from QRAM (which is smaller), because with QRAM, Windows hangs when it starts (at least in standard mode, I didn't try real mode for this).

Do you run other things on the machine, like games, that want EMS?

In the BIOS settings, have you tried setting the memory to "Extended" (XMS), so that "Expanded" (EMS) shows 0MB?

doshea wrote on 2025-10-16, 22:38:

Sorry for the follow-up, but I thought I should mention some more things: I've never tried EMM286, but more importantly, I don't […]
Show full quote

ediflorianUS wrote on 2025-10-15, 19:05:

I used QEMM or EMM286,etc , anyway no matter how I set up anything it never loads the GUI part of the install... or OS if I copy it. Keeps running out of memory (5 mb I have installed - 640+rest &CGA +4x1 Simms).

Sorry for the follow-up, but I thought I should mention some more things: I've never tried EMM286, but more importantly, I don't think EMM286 would help you to run Windows anyway, since Windows wants XMS. I'm pretty sure I just used the HIMEM.SYS that came with Windows 3.0. I have a note that when I run Windows, I use HIMEM.SYS rather than QEXT.SYS from QRAM (which is smaller), because with QRAM, Windows hangs when it starts (at least in standard mode, I didn't try real mode for this).

Do you run other things on the machine, like games, that want EMS?

In the BIOS settings, have you tried setting the memory to "Extended" (XMS), so that "Expanded" (EMS) shows 0MB?

Yeah both extended or expanded stuff work fine under dos . it just refuses to clear the memory for the GUI part of microsoft install...
I can setup anyway I want the 5 mb under dos.(even tried with swap disk from ram , worked fine.)
I will try as you mentioned , it may need a *new(used/new2me) drive anyway , just need to get around pulling it so I can check all partitions see if they ok and the my (recent) problem w controller is on the motherboard itself (then again It may end up working if I just plug it in) its 1987 tech , you never know....

*I won't risc the original Connor anymore , I was glad it still worked and even more so I found something else that's working ( I want to try the 20 gb ide seagate next if I need other drive inside).

ediflorianUS wrote on 2025-10-17, 22:06:

Yeah both extended or expanded stuff work fine under dos . it just refuses to clear the memory for the GUI part of microsoft install...

I found a backup of my disk image from just after I installed Windows 3.0a. Program Manager's "About" dialog says I have 649K memory free. Here are my very complicated CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT 😁

1files = 30
2buffers = 30
3device=C:\himem.sys

1@echo off
2set PROMPT=$p$g
3set PATH=C:\WINDOWS;c:\dos
4set TEMP=C:\WINDOWS\TEMP

One other thing I should mention is that when I set this up, I neglected to set the real time clock within the emulator, so it thought it was 1980. I mention this just in case Windows doesn't like being installed in 2025. It does run when the date is set to 2025, although File Manager has a minor Y2K bug.

When you come back to work on this again, if you have any more questions - not just a success report - perhaps you should start a new thread and link it here, so we don't get in trouble for going off topic!

Hm. I used to run Windows 3.10 and Windows 2.03 on my oldest PCs in the 1990s (286 PCs).
I had installed Windows 3.10 and MS-DOS 6.20 on a Compaq SLT/286, for example.
It was from 1988 or so, with a VGA mono LCD and about 4 MB of RAM.
I've installed the SIMMs from another, broken SLT model.

So how about trying out Windows 3.1? Or GeoWorks Ensemble?
I do understand that many of you think that Windows 3.0 is more period-correct, but Windows 3.1 had such an improved Protected-Mode.
All the issues with memory managers went away in Windows 3.1.
It did support VCPI and did tolerate DPMI, for example.
It also nolonger needed WINA20.386 or Real-Mode (to configure swap file)..

Also, I think that many upgraded to Windows 3.1 immediately in 1992, once it became available.
Also because it could be installed easily on existing Windows 3.0 without loosing settings or applications.
I mean, back then about everyone had access to a "backup copy" of the DOS/Windows disk sets.
They were bundled with new PCs and had no # number yet. The latter wasn't really a thing until NV DOS 7, WfW and Win95..

Or how about Windows 3.0 MME? 😀
Some may also had tried out Windows 3.0 MME by 1991, already, which is like a beta of Windows 3.10.
Windows with Multimedia Extensions also has screen savers and a better, more functional Control Panel.
Back in the 90s I had learned about Windows 3.0 MME by reading Windows help files of shareware games.
So it was period-correct, too.

Edit: Windows 3.1 also had received Y2K fixes..
They were distributed by Microsoft on that Y2K CD-ROM.
An updated File Manager (WfW style) was included, I remember. In multiple languages.

Edit: I know that the topic is Windows 2.03/3.0 and not 3.1x.
I just meant to say that Windows 3.1 makes so much more sense on an 80286 PC with XMS.

By contrast, Windows 2.03 makes sense on any PC with EMS that has normal EMS with 64 KB Page-Frame (Small-Frame) and normal Windows applications, such as MS Word, Excel or Page Maker 3.
About 1 MB of EMS is minimum for these big applications, and even 2 MB is a bit low, still.
That Lo-Tech card works, for example. The inofficial 4 MB version by a hobbyist is even better, though.
Commercial progeams of late 80s ate EMS like cake.

For running DOS applications, Windows/386 and a 386 CPU is desperately needed.
For example, some CAD programs (Windows) really needed a 386 and Windows 2.xx+CEMM/EMM386 or Windows/386 (has its own V86/EMS manager) in order to not crash.

Edit: As I just read in a PC magazine (DOS 1/90, p.192), Windows/386 needs at least 2 MB of RAM. In total, probably.
Running Windows 2.x environment without EMS/DOS multitasking support is possible by executing win86.com.

Now to Windows 3.0.. If you have ordinary EMS with a 64 KB Page-Frame, Windows 3.0 in Real-Mode won't correctly use it.
It is acting different to Windows 2.x! Applications won't see any EMS, it's being claimed by Windows.
In order to run large applications, EMM386 or a similar memory manager is needed.
Something that provides a 256 KB EMS Page-Frame (Large-Frame), so Windows 3.0 can swap applications in/out.
An ordinary EMS with 64 KB Page-Frame won't do much. Windows will merely swap out small parts once it runs out of Conventional Memory.

That's at least my experience that I had through experimentation.

Edit: I think this is basically same principle that DESQView supported with "back-filling" capable EMS boards.
Except that 512 KB or so of Conventional Memory were moved to the EMS boards,
leaving just about 64 to 128 KB of minimum memory for POST and booting DOS.
Once the EMS driver/DESQVIEW were used, Conventional Memory was being provided by the EMS board.
Large applications could be switched like they were sitting in a caroussel.
The EMS board basically acted like a simple memory managment unit (MMU).
The 386 has an MMU that can be programmed to basically do same thing by using CEMM/EMM386.
That's why Windows 3.0 can do these things when EMM386 provides a large EMS page-frame.

I think I need to stick to Windows 3.0 since I only have 1MB of RAM in this case, and sometimes want to start in real mode because I've allocated my 384KB of memory as EMS, but I don't think that ediflorianUS has those concerns!

I do also want to stick to software from around 1988-1990, just for fun - that's period-correct for someone in 1990, but as you say, as newer versions came out, many people upgraded software, because machines weren't so cheap to replace back then, and software upgrades actually provided new features that were useful 😁

For what it is worth, I remember using Windows 3.0 on my parents's 80386 SX with 2mb ram, DOS 5, 80mb hdd and VGA card around 1991 and it left a bad impression on me. Unless you must use an XT and Windows, go for Windows 3.1x and a 386 or 486.

From reading this thead I am surprised there is anything it all that would work on an XT with Windows 3.0. Probably slow as hell I am guessing.

To my experience, RAM is the limiting factor (Win16 wants contiguous memory, fragmentation is an issue). Followed by the HDD performance (throughput/access time).
A 286-16 or 386SX CPU is fine with a front-side bus of 0 waitstates and with 70 ns RAM (or less).
On Windows 3.1x, at least. It flies with 4 MB of RAM in Standard-Mode.
And an 16-Bit graphics card would be nice. An unaccelerated 8-Bit VGA card slows down the GUI a lot, I had one. ATI VGA Wonder with bus mouse (8-Bit).

Not sure about Windows 3.0, though.. Windows 3.1x had been optimized, but also is a magnitude more complex.
It has things like OLE, DDE, COM and much more API functions.
Windows 3.1 relates to Windows 3.0 like Windows 95 did to WfW 3.11, I'd say.

Edit: About Windows 3.0 on an 8088 (or 8086) system..
Yes, it's quite slow. But problem is lack of RAM in Real-Mode, memory managment is hard to Windows.
Little programs such as Clock.exe, Notepad.exe and so on run fine, but commercial applications will display an "out of memory" error. So no MS Word or Excel.
Unless there's EMS, the big type with 256 KB page-frame.
You can get it by running MemMaker, it will configure EMM386 for Windows 3.x..
Then, via WIN /R, Windows 3.0 in Real-Mode can suddenly run multiple Windows applications.

So what's the point of that, actually?
Well, I think that Real-Mode is mainly for compatibility.
a) maximum compatibility with Windows 2.x applications that aren’t Windows 3.0 aware yet (see MARK30 utility)
b) to run Windows 3.0 in DOS boxes on Unix (say Merge) or other restricted DOS environments (such as DESQView).
c) to run it on obscure 80186 systems (used in embedded systems, say ISDN or communication controllers by Siemens or BTX terminals etc)
d) to introduce Windows to PC/XT users, so they get a taste of Windows

In principle, Windows 3.0 in RM is handy because it behaves like an ordinary DOS progeam
and can be used as a runtime to run a single Windows application.
Also, it helped porting Windows applications to OS/2.
Windows applications that use Windows 3.0 API and use Real-Mode memory model can run anywhere (see Micrografx Mirrors or WLO).

For sophisticated use cases, though, a 386 was being recommended since the days of Windows/386.
Users of a 4,77 MHz PC/XT were better of installing a CPU accelerator card with an 80386 CPU rather than geeting an AT (286).
It allowed for multitasking DOS applications and EMS emulation.
Windows 3.0 had been patched to run on the Intel Inboard/386, too.

Btw, some early high-end Windows applications had been compiled with Watcom's Win386 Protected-Mode Extender.
Such Win16 applications were 32-Bit really and ran on any Windows in 386 Enhanced-Mode (Windows 3.0, 3.1, 9x)..
There was a custom, 32-Bit "Win16" API built on top of the real Win16 API, basically.

Edit: I could imagine that Windows 3.0 (or GeoWorks Ensemble 2) would run fine on an 8086 or V30 processor, if there was plenty of fast memory.
A PC based on SRAM (static RAM) would be nice. With a large EMS page frame and 2 -or better 4- Megabyte of Expanded Memory.

Edit: I'm not overacting on the memory consumption.
Real productivity software of the late 1980s suffered on 2 MB of RAM.
4 MB was the real world minimum for practical working.
My Lo-Tech 2 MB RAM card is low on memory running MS WinWord on Windows 2.03, after opening a sample Word document.

Screenshot can be seen here: Re: Here's a weird one: Anyone know anything about "Extended EGA"?
In the screenshot above, about 1,5 MB was consumed without any Word document loaded.

Edit: Here are some docs about Windows memory managment..
Re: Viewing the Upper Memory area

Edit: Here are some hints about Windows 2.x memory consumption.
Re: Feeding low end RAM to the scrappers?
The Page Maker 3 book has some notes about it.

Edit: Windows 3.0 RM running a lot of Windows applications through Large-Frame EMS.
Re: Windows 3.1 on a 386 with 640K RAM - Possible?

Edit: Also interesting..
Windows/386 Rap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noEHHB6rnMI

Windows 3 "the Wheel"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOmdc6wIb4I

Edit: East German version of Windows 3.0:
Re: need help choosing a dos version for 286

Edit: Windows 3.0 RM on an Olivetti M24 in 640x400 graphics:
Re: Minimal hardware/peripherals to emulate for Windows

Edit: Windows 3.0 and 2.x (both Real-Mode) in DESQView:
https://youtu.be/qydywJluNdI?t=204

Windows 2.0 via remote connection (PC-Tools Commute).
https://youtu.be/HRPCGWGSqD4?t=332

Edit: To me, the question is: How do we get Large-Frame EMS on a physical 16-Bit PC?
Also, does it have to be a 256 KB page-frame or can it be a 128 KB version?
If the Lo-Tech card could be made to support Large-Frame EMS, then would Windows 3.0 compatibility/usefulness been improved? 😀

Edit: My apologies for the long reply! I just thought the links would be helpful.
The usefulness of Windows 2.03 or 3.0 on an PC/XT really is an interesting topic on its own, I think.
What's good about Windows 3.0 is that it provided hardware abstraction.

The many printer drivers alone were worth something.
In professional fields, Adobe Type Manager (ATM) for scalable fonts was important additon, for example.
IBM even made it part of the Win-OS/2 installation..
But then again, I'm not sure if ATM can run in Real-Mode, even..

Then there are the higher screen resolutions..
MS Windows, GEM and GeoWorks Ensemble always supported them on various graphics cards.
Or let's just think of IBM's 8514/A.. Windows and OS/2 had support for it.

So way back in the 80s, it was like this perhaps:
- Windows 2.x (plain or /286 edition) for users of weak PCs that couldn't run OS/2,
but want to run graphical desktop applications (Windows applications)
- Windows/386 for power users that mainly want to multitask DOS applications and use lots of RAM via EMS,
with Windows applications supporting EMS being a bonus
- OS/2 for professionals with high-end PCs that want to run true multitasking applications;
either text-mode OS/2 applications, Family API applications (OS/2-DOS hybrids) or Presentation Manager applications

More information in this old news article:
https://books.google.de/books?id=RzsEAAAAMBAJ … epage&q&f=false

So basically, Windows/386 did a lot for existing DOS applications/little to its native applications, while OS/2 did the reverse.
OS/2 1.x did offer a lot for its native applications, while its DOS support was limited to a single compatibility box.
As if it was a fast XT (I heard there was one commercial EMS product for inside the compatibility box).
In later years, starting with OS/2 1.2, it could run Real-Mode friendly Windows 3.0 applications that had been ported (via Mirrors, WLO).

To make the Windows experience on PC/XT bearable, Microsoft itself sold the MACH accelerator cards.
Mach 10 was meant for 8088 PCs running Windows 1.x and contained a fast 8086 processor (2x speed) and a bus mouse interface.
Mach 20 contained an 80286 at 8 MHz, by comparison.
It was being advertised for running OS/2 at one point, which may or may not the case depending who you're listening to.

OS/2 needed the simpler Extended Memory (normal RAM above 1MB), whereas Windows 2.x could only use EMS (and optionally 64 KB of HMA in the /286 edition).
So it depended on the memory board that was attached on the custom 16-Bit "ISA" slot on the back of the card, whether it was EMS or XMS basically.

Info: https://uk.pcmag.com/desktops/62082/the-secre … rosoft-hardware

Edit: About Windows 1.x.. It had indeed a few real use cases besides running the desktop gadgets Clock, Notepad, Write, MS Paint, Calculator, Terminal etc.
In the UK, it was being used for the RM Nimbus 186 PC series, I read online.
Then, secondly, it was being used in desktop publishing.
There had been a few spezialized monitors with pivot function that could be turned by 90 degrees.
So they worked in portrait mode. Windows 1.x drivers existed for such setups, which is amazing.

Was there an official physical release of Windows 3.0 MME? Or did it just come pre-installed on OEM machines?

sunkindly wrote on 2025-10-26, 03:14:

Was there an official physical release of Windows 3.0 MME? Or did it just come pre-installed on OEM machines?

No, MME was sold with multimedia 1.0 systems and was quite rare…

Windows 3.0 with Multimedia Extensions (MME) was released to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) in October 1991. This was an extension for the original Windows 3.0, which came out in May 1990.
Release Date: October 1991
Purpose: This release added support for sound cards, CD-ROM drives, and other multimedia devices, as detailed on this Fandom page.
Distribution: It was an OEM-only release, meaning it was bundled with new hardware rather than being a standalone product for general consumers at the time.
Original Windows 3.0: The base version of Windows 3.0 was released on May 22, 1990.

sunkindly wrote on 2025-10-26, 03:14:

Was there an official physical release of Windows 3.0 MME? Or did it just come pre-installed on OEM machines?

OEM. Shipped on CD-ROM, because of "Multimedia PC" (MPC) specification..
A few pictures (no files) are here:
https://winhistory.de/more/win3.htm#win3me
https://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2016/12/ … tion-early.html

I could not find a picture of an MME CD-ROM, though. Sorry. 🙁
The Tandy version was probably most common,
but there also was at least one PC-98 port for Japanese PCs.

PS: There are quite some freeware/shareware games that support Windows 3.0 MME! 😃
https://win16.page/_winmme1.htm