PDA

View Full Version : Windows: an upgrade of an upgrade of an upgrade



JohnnyC35
July 26th, 2010, 03:17 PM
I saw a signature and was kind of wondering...


"Microsoft Windows: A collection of 32bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16bit patch to an 8bit O.S. originally coded for a 4bit microprocessor written by a 2bit company who cant stand 1 bit of competition." Jargon File 4.4.7

... if there were people who had something similar to said OS. Maybe they had a tower that they kept upgrading so that Windows Vista on a 486 didn't cause bad things. Someone bought MS-DOS and Windows 3.1, upgraded to 95, then 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, and lastly to 7, and how it would run since the more normal route would just be to clean install.

just wondering

RiceMonster
July 26th, 2010, 03:22 PM
If you bought a machine with Windows 3.1 back in the day, there is no way in hell it could run Vista or 7.


Also, Windows is not based on DOS anymore. It uses the NT kernel.

the8thstar
July 26th, 2010, 03:30 PM
Running Windows 7 on my old 286 with 40Mb of HDD and 640k of RAM would be quite something... I don't think even MenuetOS could do that!

jrothwell97
July 26th, 2010, 03:32 PM
also, windows is not based on dos anymore. It uses the nt kernel.

qft.

JohnnyC35
July 26th, 2010, 03:45 PM
If you bought a machine with Windows 3.1 back in the day, there is no way in hell it could run Vista or 7.


Also, Windows is not based on DOS anymore. It uses the NT kernel.


right but I was thinking if they upgraded things but left the hard drive and it's data alone and upgraded the OS. Windows isn't run on DOS anymore, you're right but you needed it with Windows 3.1 and I think 95/98. After that they did away with it.

Frogs Hair
July 26th, 2010, 03:45 PM
You would need a 1ghz CPU and graphics compatible with direct x 9 or higher for W7. Flash 10 requires a 500mhz CPU.

CharlesA
July 26th, 2010, 04:21 PM
The same thing would happen that happens to anything that is an upgrade of an upgrade of an upgrade - it will run like crap.

Try this:

Install 8.04, then upgrade to 8.10, 9.04, 9.10 and then 10.04 and see if anything is broken. :)

Dr. C
July 26th, 2010, 04:29 PM
Running Windows 7 on my old 286 with 40Mb of HDD and 640k of RAM would be quite something... I don't think even MenuetOS could do that!

Windows XP running on a Pentium overdrive processor under clocked to 7MHz using a socket 3 (486) motherboard. http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm. The clock speed is less than my 286 which runs at 12MHz, but Windows XP needs at least a Pentium instruction set.

Have not seen a very brave soul try this with Windows Vista.

LowSky
July 26th, 2010, 04:30 PM
I think it would be a fun experiment. Grab an old copy of 3.11, install it then find an upgrade CD for 95, then find an upgrade CD for 98, then one for Me, then one for XP, then one for Vista and finnaly for 7.

I would love to see how 3.11 runs on a 3.5Ghz quad core with 4GB of RAM that it cant completely use.

Actually I'm wondering if this could even be done. Hard drive size would be an issue. I dont even know if 3.11 can see a 1GB size drive, and I sorta remember windows xp having a problem with drives over certain size until SP1.

what is funny is that in 1994 my PC had 4MB of RAM and only 33Mhz of processing power and a 250 MB hard drive. Its amazing what 16 years has accomplished.

CharlesA
July 26th, 2010, 04:55 PM
I have a feeling it wouldn't run at all, it was a 16-bit OS, but who knows.

If you actually could get it installed, it would have to be on a hard drive that was less then 4GB that was an IDE drive, not SATA.

jerenept
July 26th, 2010, 05:12 PM
The same thing would happen that happens to anything that is an upgrade of an upgrade of an upgrade - it will run like crap.

Try this:

Install 8.04, then upgrade to 8.10, 9.04, 9.10 and then 10.04 and see if anything is broken. :)

You can upgrade from 8.04LTS directly to 10.04LTS.

MwaHaHa

linux18
July 26th, 2010, 05:16 PM
there are some not-so-legal ultra-lightweight ultra-tweaked stripped down versions of xp, vista, and 7. if you can find the fastest hardware supported by win 3.11 then it just needs to boot up that lean win 7 and then the chances of taking the upgrade route are greatly increased. maybe test in virtualbox first?

CharlesA
July 26th, 2010, 08:00 PM
You can upgrade from 8.04LTS directly to 10.04LTS.

MwaHaHa

Yes I know. That's not the point. :p

Old_Grey_Wolf
July 27th, 2010, 01:09 AM
I think it would be a fun experiment. Grab an old copy of 3.11, install it then find an upgrade CD for 95, then find an upgrade CD for 98, then one for Me, then one for XP, then one for Vista and finnaly for 7.

I would love to see how 3.11 runs on a 3.5Ghz quad core with 4GB of RAM that it cant completely use.

Actually I'm wondering if this could even be done. Hard drive size would be an issue. I dont even know if 3.11 can see a 1GB size drive, and I sorta remember windows xp having a problem with drives over certain size until SP1.

what is funny is that in 1994 my PC had 4MB of RAM and only 33Mhz of processing power and a 250 MB hard drive. Its amazing what 16 years has accomplished.

I just remembered that I may have a set of floppies for DOS 3.11. But alas, I don't have a floppy drive. :shock:

I don't know why I keep that old junk in my computer room.
:lolflag:

The estimated life expectancy for floppies was 10 years. Therefore, they probably wouldn't work anyway.

Edit: Well, I found them. From the looks of them, I was already having trouble getting them to work back-in-the-day. The sliding shields had been removed from some of the floppies. This tells me that they were already going bad when I was actually using them. I have finally disposed of them. My wife is so proud of me, hehe.