Windows 3.11

Gardinen · Jun 24, 2003, 08:28 AM

I'm having thoughts if installing Windows 3.11 on my Cyrix 133 Mhz, which I got from my aunt.

Matth · Jun 24, 2003, 09:59 AM

I've run it on a Cyrix - no reason why it shouldn't
Main problem with Win3.1 - is finding much that will run on it - even freeware and shareware have probably deserted it by now - some of the archive sites still have Win3.1 sections.
I have a fair bit of old stuff here - CICA '97 CD set if I can find it, so if you need a Win3.1 graphics driver, I may have one.

You can probably run win95, maybe win98.

To run WinME - you would need to override hardware requirements - SETUP /NM
If the CPU is a little light, be sure not to also skimp on memory, or it really WILL be slow.

You could always try Linux - just throw a bootable CD version such as Knoppix at it, and see if/how it runs.

Jeff · Jun 24, 2003, 10:08 AM

if you're lucky you can get IE5/16bit working on it....

Matth · Jun 24, 2003, 10:47 AM

http://www.calmira.org/

A Win95-ish frontend for Win3.1 - and a natural gathering point for Win3.1 staybacks

IE5.01 for Win3.1? http://classic.tucows.com/preview/4842.html

UberLord · Jun 24, 2003, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gardinen
I'm having thoughts if installing Windows 3.11 on my Cyrix 133 Mhz, which I got from my aunt.

Why not install a Linux distro? It would probably make an excellent small server!

BTW, could you please trim your signature to 10 lines? Thanks!

peterosesbookie · Jun 24, 2003, 11:36 AM

I have the disks for 3.1

rogeld · Jun 28, 2003, 12:27 AM

Hah, got you all beat. I still have the original box and instruction manual which are both big enough to kill a small yak with. ;P

digitalwanderer · Jun 28, 2003, 09:12 AM

Any reason for choosing 3.11 over 95?

Gardinen · Jun 28, 2003, 11:58 AM

Well anyway, I'm running Win98 on my Cyrix 166+ @ 133 mhz now, which works very well.
The computer is a replacement for my mothers 120 mhz laptop /w win95. And currently the updates for the program that she's using aren't working for win95 anymore. And the laptop doesn't got any CD-rom so that I can install win98 on it. Which actually really sucks

rogeld · Jun 28, 2003, 12:46 PM

It is a shame that network installs aren't quite available with win98, but that would also be assuming that the laptop has a NIC. You don't have a backpack cd-rom you can borrow off of anyone?

Matth · Jun 29, 2003, 06:26 AM

If you had enough disk space, you could network the Win98 CAB files/setup onto it, and install that way.

Or with the "USB in DOS" from the front page, maybe you could put them on a usb flashdrive.
Looks like the necessary might just about squeeze into 128Mb, but there may be a nasty surprise when Win98 takes over and doesn't have a driver for it!

Judas · Jun 30, 2003, 09:41 PM

it will be worth it to get a CD-ROM drive for it...

If it has over 64mb (not equal to.... must be at LEAST 80mb or 92mb) or ram

Get windows XP PRO.... or home.... PRO i'd go for.... will cream windows 98se if you setup NTFS on it along with SP1

Darksider · Jul 1, 2003, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Judas
it will be worth it to get a CD-ROM drive for it...

If it has over 64mb (not equal to.... must be at LEAST 80mb or 92mb) or ram

Get windows XP PRO.... or home.... PRO i'd go for.... will cream windows 98se if you setup NTFS on it along with SP1

On a 133MHz Cyrix?!

I think 98 is about the best that thing could do. I don't care how much memory it has.

JavaFox · Jul 2, 2003, 12:03 AM

WinXP on a system with 64MB is a horrid, horrid experience. Plus, if Microsoft says 233MHz is the requirement (it isn't, though), I wouldn't try using a CPU that is so much slower.

~~Sourcer_2002~~ · Jul 2, 2003, 12:09 AM

Ok i cant remember how this was done.....but i had a friend that was a programmer and he was really good.....he was really good in linux...one day he told me he used a proggy i think the name was Xcat...i beivele theres a windows version of it.....anyway he used that to on his PC, his brothers older pc not sure what it was but it was old would but with the core boot files.....but before it got into windows his computer then took over all the operation on through the network. Im not sure how it worked i would have to ask him

peterosesbookie · Jul 2, 2003, 01:23 AM

I have a friend that has a laptop from toshiba that has a 1mhz processor 64K ram and I do not recall the rest, but the screen I think is 10 inches and runs windows 3.11. The screen is green but I had to find the disks so that he can install the mouse drivers for the system. This was a top of the machine at one time.

The laptop is all white and only has a floppy drive and some ports but I do not recall them.

Yes the processor speed is right

later

pete

I will have to go check it out again sometime to give a full report on it.

Judas · Jul 2, 2003, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
WinXP on a system with 64MB is a horrid, horrid experience. Plus, if Microsoft says 233MHz is the requirement (it isn't, though), I wouldn't try using a CPU that is so much slower.

I've tested windows 95/98/me on 3 machines.... 75mhz/100mhz/133mhz with or without MMX (give or take cause of the old computers)

If you have EXACTLY 64mb of ram.... screw the idea... if you have 80mb (although i recommend a minuim of 80 and recommend 92) or ram.... it'll push windows XP PRO SP1 DX9 really actually conformatably....

Playing games on those computers is even smoother with windows XP then 95/98/ME

You HAVE to have 1038mb of free hardrive space to even make an attempt at installing xp..... your have to have 64mb of ram for windows xp to even consider it..... it doesn't appear to care what speed your cpu is.....

And just cause they say (mininum 233mhz doesn't mean didly)

I used to run 90mhz 486dx (compaq computer with weird multipliers)
80mb of ram
1.6gb hd
4x cd rom
256kb onboard video
PCI netgear NIC

I've bumped the cpu speed to 120 which helps a bit...... but doesn't change some stuff...
For sure, your not going to play 320kbps mp3s.... but some of the card and pinball games run rather quite serprisingly smooth compared to windows 98 under the same hardware.... NTFS versus FAT32 maybe... i'm not sure..... Defraging is WAY quicker for sure.....

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jul 2, 2003, 07:49 AM

put windows 95 on it !!! i had 98 on my old p60

astrolabos · Jul 9, 2003, 04:29 PM

do not forget that a Cyrix cpu is not equal to an Intel pentium cpu

Shadow Lady · Jul 16, 2003, 10:34 AM

yeah, i still remember my old cyrix 1ghz, it was like a joke

GUNNIX · Jul 19, 2003, 08:27 PM

Judas , there is no way winXP would work faster then win98. I tested win98 vs winXP on an 266mhz amd, 160mb ram. win98 beats xp in all office stuff, boots faster , and is lots smoother. I applied some basic tweaks to both OS's. As for games: win98 has a smaller footprint in ram then XP (way smaller actually- forsho if you don't disable rediculous services). It's obvious that the games get more ram available in Win98 and will run smoother with only 160mb ram. We don't expect such an old machine to have 512mb ram installed , do we ?

And with win98 you spare lots of hundreds of megabytes in comparison to winXP. Old pc's don't have those to spare u know.

FAT32 is known to be faster in handling smaller hd's

I even think WinXP is a rediculous on a 600mhz pc with 128mb ram, u need 256mb ram to have it running smoothly.