PC Transporter fun
Bart
A PC Transporter on a IIGS. An interesting combination. In this case a
IIGS-IIe upgrade system, and, this is the way to go for running a PCT The IIe
case is longer and better accomodates the card. Such a beast running Windows
3.0 is a challenge. 1st is the problem of compatability with hardware and
software, 2nd is the sheer mechanics of Getting it there!
One major consideration is video drivers. What video setting do you use with
an Analog Apple RGB
monitor inthe 15MHz refresh range talking via the included PCT color switch
board? {{BTW, install tip for the color switch on a IIe style case: Install
it in the backplane slot over the power supply using something flat and
nonconductive as an insulator under it (I pryed the metal off a 3.5 floppy and
used that.}}
To get an EGA capable Windows ver 3.0 setup over to my PC Transporter equipped
Apple IIgs I had to do some rather bizzare shuffles:
First, I do not have any 386 or 486 class machines that have 1.2meg 5.25
drives installed. And you need a 1.2 meg drive to install Win 3.0; the 5
install disks are in that size. I guess you could copy them to a 1.44 and use
a Supredrive and Superdrive card, but I am fresh out of those, or use the Blue
Disk(?) from Joachim Lange (on my wish list too) but these options are not
currently avaialable So...
I had to boot a PII 333 (my one remaining machine with a 1.2 meg 5.25 drive)
into Comand Prompt and install Win 3.0 there. Tried it too for grins. man oh
man! Windows SCREAMS on a PII!) I then moved the directory to a 486 that has
DOS 6.0 and Win for Workgroups 3.11 (16 bit TCP/IP installed) via TCP/IP.
This machine does not have an EGA monitor so I needed to move it on. I used
Novell IPX to move the directory to a 386 with an EGA monitor. This machine
does NOT have a 1.2meg 5.25 floppy drive so... to get the correct drivers
I..ran SETUP. It asked for disks 1 -3 of the setup so I mounted floppy on
Pentium and copied needed files from PII -> 486 -> 386 as it asked for them.
Had to do this as PII-> is a TCP link, 486-> 386 is IPX. Then rebooted (386)
and had it. EGA mode Windows 3.0 worked.
Zipped the resulant directory, created a zip self extractor, and copied it to
my main PIII which runs COPSTALK (Appletalk compatable protocol) and passed
across to a Mac.
Then I used the GS to snarf the zip via regular Appletalk from the target Mac.
Last I used the PCT Transfer progy to get it into the DOS "Disk". From
here... well all that shuffling left the file (Zip self extractor) damaged so
I copied PKZ204g.exe over to the PCT via the TranDrive 360k (it is a 220k
file) and installed pkzip on the Apple. I then ran PKZIPFIX on the file,
then unzipped it.
It is now in the process of writing the files one at a time (you don't KNOW
the difference tween a modern box and a old 8088 till you watch one run a
decompression; MAN that's sloow! Ah HA! GDI.EXE doesn't pass crc so, copied
another to a 360k .. two more files, similar problem. Ok. That is done, now
the acid test. Humm reboot the PCT to be sure and..
A Windows logo on my Apple IIgs in a IIe Case.
Poor poor computer. How could a cruel human do that to you! Well it boots
and sees my Apple mouse as a Microsoft one. Recognizes the IIe keyboard AND
the old style 96 key Zeinth plugged in too. I just launched Solitare. humm
red queen on the black... uh well that's it ;)
-Bart
Paul Grammens
Bart <m...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:tf7bb5a...@corp.supernews.com...
> Here is a short epistle on some of my latest tinkerings...
>
> A PC Transporter on a IIGS. An interesting combination. In this case a
> IIGS-IIe upgrade system, and, this is the way to go for running a PCT The
IIe
> case is longer and better accomodates the card. Such a beast running
Windows
> 3.0 is a challenge. 1st is the problem of compatability with hardware and
> software, 2nd is the sheer mechanics of Getting it there!
>
Isn't the PCT an XT class PC? I didn't think Win3.0 would run on anything
short of a 286.
-Paul
Bart
>Isn't the PCT an XT class PC? I didn't think Win3.0 would run on anything
>short of a 286.
>-Paul
work, guess I could stop usin it ;)
-Bart
Charlie
I ran Windows 3.0 on my Apple IIgs using the PC Transporter about 7 years
ago. It worked alright but was very slow and used CGA because my PC
Transporter did not support EGA. By the way I didn't have to go through all
the steps you did to get Win 3.0 onto the PCT. Windows 3.0 also came on
3.5" 720Kbyte disks (7 of them I think). I just put them in my Apple 3.5"
drive which was connected to my PCT and installed it.
Charlie
J.Q.P.
>
> Such a beast running
> Windows
>
> short of a 286.
Older versions of Windows (i.e. 3.0/3.1) had "standard" and "Enhanced"
modes. Enhanced, of course, required an 80386, but I believe
that standard mode would work with older processors, and lower
memory configurations.
There's PC emulator for Linux/x86 called DOSEMU, and while it
has difficulty running 386 enhanced mode (even though it
emulates, or rather virtualizes, a 486 or pentium chip), it runs
standard mode just fine. (well, as fine as 3.x-era Windows would
run)
Bart
>ago. It worked alright but was very slow and used CGA because my PC
>Transporter did not support EGA. By the way I didn't have to go through all
>the steps you did to get Win 3.0 onto the PCT. Windows 3.0 also came on
>3.5" 720Kbyte disks (7 of them I think). I just put them in my Apple 3.5"
>drive which was connected to my PCT and installed it.
>
I have looked high and low for Windows 3.0 in the 720k flavor without luck.
My favorite retro computer botique (Goodwill) has failed me in this regard.
Thus you see my need to floppy shuffle to get the system over. I tried CGA
without luck. I did get EGA working on the beast (btw, I am using a EGA driver
that was actually designed for Windows for Wokgroups that I at one time had
working under 95 (Yeah guys I know: its a A2 group but for those interested
in the PCT, thought it might be of note)
My main use for the PCT lately is 1 for a ramdrive under GS/OS and 2 to use
the 360k drives as MFM ProDOS drives. Kinda interesting to play with in htis
way. I just loaded Windows to see if it would work and, to say I had.
Now, I am thinkin of scrubbing it all and runnin CPM86 instead ;)
-Bart
Jeff Blakeney
wrote:
>I tried CGA
>without luck. I did get EGA working on the beast (btw, I am using a EGA driver
>that was actually designed for Windows for Wokgroups that I at one time had
>working under 95
That seems extremely strange to me seeing as the PCT only has CGA
hardware on it. However, I suppose that because EGA cards were
backwards compatible with CGA cards that an EGA driver will work but
only so long as you don't choose an actualy EGA mode. :-)
--
Jeff Blakeney - Dean of the Apple II Unversity on A2Central.com
Paul Schlyter
> Paul Grammens wrote:
>
>> Such a beast running
>> Windows
>>
>> Isn't the PCT an XT class PC? I didn't think Win3.0 would run on anything
>> short of a 286.
>
> Older versions of Windows (i.e. 3.0/3.1) had "standard" and "Enhanced"
> modes. Enhanced, of course, required an 80386, but I believe
> that standard mode would work with older processors, and lower
> memory configurations.
8086/8088. Windows 3.x did require a minimum of a 286 in standard
mode.
> There's PC emulator for Linux/x86 called DOSEMU, and while it
> has difficulty running 386 enhanced mode (even though it
> emulates, or rather virtualizes, a 486 or pentium chip), it runs
> standard mode just fine. (well, as fine as 3.x-era Windows would
> run)
Isn't it already running on a 386, 486 or Pentium? <g>
DOSEMU need not only emulate the CPU though - in particular it needs
to emulate the software and hardware environment of an MS-DOS machine.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
David Empson
> In article <3AF4516B...@hotmail.com>, J.Q.P. <j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Paul Grammens wrote:
> >
> >> Isn't the PCT an XT class PC? I didn't think Win3.0 would run on anything
> >> short of a 286.
> >
> > Older versions of Windows (i.e. 3.0/3.1) had "standard" and "Enhanced"
> > modes. Enhanced, of course, required an 80386, but I believe
> > that standard mode would work with older processors, and lower
> > memory configurations.
>
> I think he's right. Only Windows up to ver 2 would run on a plain
> 8086/8088. Windows 3.x did require a minimum of a 286 in standard
> mode.
Don't forget that the PC Transporter uses an NEC V30 processor, which
has additional instructions that are also available in the 80186 (and
later family members). This may be sufficient to allow Win 3.x to run
in standard mode. (I haven't tried myself, so I don't know the answer
either way.)
I've encountered other software (such as 4DOS) which claim to require an
80286, but which also work on an 80186, or an NEC V20 or V30.
Roy and/or Janet Miller
> On Sun, 06 May 2001 02:06:54 -0000, you@there@sothere.there (Bart)
> wrote:
>
> >I tried CGA
> >without luck. I did get EGA working on the beast (btw, I am using a EGA driver
> >that was actually designed for Windows for Wokgroups that I at one time had
> >working under 95
>
> That seems extremely strange to me seeing as the PCT only has CGA
> hardware on it. However, I suppose that because EGA cards were
> backwards compatible with CGA cards that an EGA driver will work but
> only so long as you don't choose an actualy EGA mode. :-)
EGA will do CGA resolution with 16 colors as opposed to the CGA's 4 colors. Kinda
like the PCjr and Tandy 1000. Oh, and it does it on a CGA monitor.
Roy
Dan
dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> Don't forget that the PC Transporter uses an NEC V30 processor, which
> has additional instructions that are also available in the 80186 (and
> later family members). This may be sufficient to allow Win 3.x to run
> in standard mode. (I haven't tried myself, so I don't know the answer
> either way.)
>
> I've encountered other software (such as 4DOS) which claim to require an
> 80286, but which also work on an 80186, or an NEC V20 or V30.
No, Windows 3.0 was 3 different pieces of software. It had a Real Mode
version. This is what is running on a PC Transporter. It runs in 640K
and would work on a PC/XT.
It had a Standard Mode version. This ran on 286s. You needed at least 1
meg of RAM to run this.
It had a Enhanced Mode version. This ran on 386s. You needed at least
2 megs of RAM for this.
Windows 3.1 dropped the Real Mode support. It ran on 286s and up.
Win95 dropped the Standard Mode support. It required a 386 or higher to run.
Dan
Simon Biber
> version. This is what is running on a PC Transporter. It runs in 640K
> and would work on a PC/XT.
It also runs in 512k, I know from experience on my very first PC (I traded
in my Apple II+ with Z-80 card, for a 286 with 512k of RAM... oh, if I had
known!).
> It had a Standard Mode version. This ran on 286s. You needed at least 1
> meg of RAM to run this.
Yes, I ended up going to a 386 motherboard though. It wasn't worth getting
more RAM.
> It had a Enhanced Mode version. This ran on 386s. You needed at least
> 2 megs of RAM for this.
>
> Windows 3.1 dropped the Real Mode support. It ran on 286s and up.
Yes.
> Win95 dropped the Standard Mode support. It required a 386 or higher to
run.
No, Win 3.11 dropped the Standard Mode support first.
Simon.
Paul Grammens
Dan <o...@net.com> wrote
>
> No, Windows 3.0 was 3 different pieces of software. It had a Real Mode
> version. This is what is running on a PC Transporter. It runs in 640K
> and would work on a PC/XT.
>
> It had a Standard Mode version. This ran on 286s. You needed at least 1
> meg of RAM to run this.
>
> It had a Enhanced Mode version. This ran on 386s. You needed at least
> 2 megs of RAM for this.
>
> Windows 3.1 dropped the Real Mode support. It ran on 286s and up.
>
> Win95 dropped the Standard Mode support. It required a 386 or higher to
run.
Thanks for the explanation, Dan. This jibes with what I was able to dig up
on the net. Win3.0 was the first version I used, but I soon switched to
Win3.1. By the time I knew enough about computers to appreciate the
different modes, Win3.0 was long forgotten. I thought it was the same as
3.1 in this regard, but it's not.
-Paul
Paul Schlyter
David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter <pau...@saaf.se> wrote:
>
>> In article <3AF4516B...@hotmail.com>, J.Q.P. <j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Grammens wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't the PCT an XT class PC? I didn't think Win3.0 would run on anything
>>>> short of a 286.
>>>
>>> Older versions of Windows (i.e. 3.0/3.1) had "standard" and "Enhanced"
>>> modes. Enhanced, of course, required an 80386, but I believe
>>> that standard mode would work with older processors, and lower
>>> memory configurations.
>>
>> I think he's right. Only Windows up to ver 2 would run on a plain
>> 8086/8088. Windows 3.x did require a minimum of a 286 in standard
>> mode.
>
> Don't forget that the PC Transporter uses an NEC V30 processor, which
> has additional instructions that are also available in the 80186
> (and later family members).
This was a fuzzy claim. Which later family members? Only the 286?
Or all of them right through the Pentium III ?
> This may be sufficient to allow Win 3.x to run in standard mode. (I
> haven't tried myself, so I don't know the answer either way.)
>
> I've encountered other software (such as 4DOS) which claim to require
> an 80286, but which also work on an 80186, or an NEC V20 or V30.
choice was usually between a plain 8086/8088 and an 80286 or later.
Therefore, if some PC program required at least an 80186, in practice
this often meant you had to get an 80286 PC or later to be able to
run that program.
Inserting a V20 into your 8088 PC of course was a way to make it
"80186 compatible" very cheaply. I used a V20 myself; however when I
inserted the V20 into my old PC, the 8087 refused to work, so I ended
up switching back to the 8088.
The V20 also had a nateive 8080 mode, which enabled you to run CP/M
must faster than by emukating the 8080. As a result, my 4.77 MHz V20
PC ran CP/M programs some 2-3 times faster than my 16 MHz 386.
David Empson
> In article <1et0i2m.owt7vk1gsm9wN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> > Don't forget that the PC Transporter uses an NEC V30 processor, which
> > has additional instructions that are also available in the 80186
>
> Already the NEC V20 had all the extra 80186 instructions.
I would have expected that the V20 and V30 were released at about the
same time, since they are the same architecture internally but with a
different data bus width (V20 is 8 bit, like the 8088 or 80188; V30 is
16 bit, like the 8086 and 80186).
In fact, the 8088 was released _after_ the 8086, but I don't know which
way around the V20 and V30 were released.
> > (and later family members).
>
> This was a fuzzy claim. Which later family members? Only the 286?
> Or all of them right through the Pentium III ?
I meant that the extra instructions of the V20/V30/80188/80186 are also
available in the 80286, 80386, 80486, Pentium, etc., up to and including
the latest members of the family (as opposed to being unique to the
V20/V30/80188/80186).
> The V20 also had a nateive 8080 mode, which enabled you to run CP/M
> must faster than by emukating the 8080. As a result, my 4.77 MHz V20
> PC ran CP/M programs some 2-3 times faster than my 16 MHz 386.
It is a pity that its 8080 mode didn't also support Z80 instructions.
In my CP/M development days, the Z80 was much more comfortable to use.
I briefly dealt with an 8085, which I found rather clumsy to deal with,
since I was used to the greater flexibility of the Z80.
Christopher D. Heer
news:3af4...@news.svn.net...
> Bart <m...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:tf7bb5a...@corp.supernews.com...
> > A PC Transporter on a IIGS. An interesting combination. In this case a
> > IIGS-IIe upgrade system, and, this is the way to go for running a PCT
The
> > IIe
> > case is longer and better accomodates the card. Such a beast running
> > Windows
> > 3.0 is a challenge. 1st is the problem of compatability with hardware
and
> > software, 2nd is the sheer mechanics of Getting it there!
> Isn't the PCT an XT class PC? I didn't think Win3.0 would run on anything
> short of a 286.
Windows 3.0 had three modes:
[1] Real, which would run on any x86 machine
[2] Standard, which required a 286 w/2MB of RAM
[3] Enhanced, which required a 386
Of course, lots and lots of software refused to run in Real mode. But it
worked!
--chris
Christopher D. Heer
news:9d34hg$n8i$1...@merope.saaf.se...
> I think he's right. Only Windows up to ver 2 would run on a plain
> 8086/8088. Windows 3.x did require a minimum of a 286 in standard
> mode.
But Windows 3.0 had Real mode, which worked on a lowly 8088/8086.
--chris
Christopher D. Heer
news:1et0i2m.owt7vk1gsm9wN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz...
> Don't forget that the PC Transporter uses an NEC V30 processor, which
> has additional instructions that are also available in the 80186 (and
> later family members). This may be sufficient to allow Win 3.x to run
> in standard mode. (I haven't tried myself, so I don't know the answer
> either way.)
Nope, the V30 only ran in Real mode.
--chris
Bart
what I was doing was really OK. It brought to mind an old Gilligan's Island
where G. was flapping his Palm fond wings up in the air and the Skipper comes
along and says "You can't do that! its impossible!". I have been afraid my
Windows equipped PCT would stop working if it heard this thread ;)
Well, back to working on my latest: I installed a TOPS Network card on a
386 and am attempting to access it from a GS.
-Bart
Paul Grammens
> Thanks everyone.This thread has been helpful, informative and, I learned
that
> what I was doing was really OK.
Sorry if I came across as suggesting that you were doing something
impossible, I was really wondering aloud where I was wrong in thinking it
shouldn't be possible. And the answer was that there is that crucial
difference between Win3.0 and 3.1. I'd never seen Windows on an XT class
computer, probably because it runs so slow. Congratulations on your
accomplishment, that's my idea of fun, doing something difficult and
technically challenging.
-Paul
cke...@gmail.com
Would there be any point to getting "Windows 3.0 with Multimedia Extensions"? I had a cruise through the long manual for PC Transporter, and nowhere does it mention any SoundBlaster hardware or anything else to do with audio.
I think I'll try this with Windows 3.00a though, as that's got some critical fixes with the dreaded UAEs (the original "Blue Screen of Death").
Would it be easiest if I setup Windows 3.00a completely on a DOSbox first, making sure to select 8088 and EGA drivers, then just transferred the whole C: drive over in a CF / SD card disk?
This could be the saner way of installing it, although I do dream of seeing the Windows install screen on a GS or //e.
Jeff Blakeney
> (time to necromance this thread...)
>
> Would there be any point to getting "Windows 3.0 with Multimedia
> Extensions"? I had a cruise through the long manual for PC
> Transporter, and nowhere does it mention any SoundBlaster hardware or
> anything else to do with audio.
SoundBlaster or even AdLib support. Heck, I don't even know if it had a
speaker or even a connector to support the PC speaker sound.
> I think I'll try this with Windows 3.00a though, as that's got some
> critical fixes with the dreaded UAEs (the original "Blue Screen of
> Death").
>
> Would it be easiest if I setup Windows 3.00a completely on a DOSbox
> first, making sure to select 8088 and EGA drivers, then just
> transferred the whole C: drive over in a CF / SD card disk?
>
> This could be the saner way of installing it, although I do dream of
> seeing the Windows install screen on a GS or //e.
The first issue is that the PC Transporter only supports CGA graphics
and I don't believe Windows 3.0 will work with anything less than EGA
graphics.
The second, if I remember correctly, is that Windows 3.0 requires a 286
processor minimum which the PC Transporter doesn't have.
It has been a long time and I never actually owned a PC Transporter so I
might be off about all of this.
STYNX
> The second, if I remember correctly, is that Windows 3.0 requires a 286
> processor minimum which the PC Transporter doesn't have.
Most 286 applications run on a NEC V30.
Jeff Blakeney
Steve Nickolas
> The first issue is that the PC Transporter only supports CGA graphics and I
> don't believe Windows 3.0 will work with anything less than EGA graphics.
Even 3.1 supports CGA though not out of the box.
> The second, if I remember correctly, is that Windows 3.0 requires a 286
> processor minimum which the PC Transporter doesn't have.
before.
-uso.
Jeff Blakeney
I started using Windows at v3.1. I don't remember hearing about people
using Windows on the PC Transporter much so figured it wasn't really doable.
So much for my memory. :)
mdj
> Don't forget that the PC Transporter uses an NEC V30 processor, which
> has additional instructions that are also available in the 80186 (and
> later family members). This may be sufficient to allow Win 3.x to run
> in standard mode. (I haven't tried myself, so I don't know the answer
> either way.)
The PC Transporter has at most 768k of RAM. I assume that of the extra 128k, half is the 64k CGA graphics buffer (The B block) , and the other is used to hold the BIOS + interfacing code (The F block).
I can't think of any reason why (even if the instructions were there) that Windows would run in standard mode on a machine with only 640k of addressable RAM - there's simply no point (and a lot of good reasons not to) unless you're trying to use the (typically) 384k of additional RAM on a 286.
Wow, I think I just thought 'fondly' of the A20 gate ! I must be getting old :-)
Matt
Bill Buckels
wants to do something it doesn't mean it's a good idea. For once I think I
might agree with Matt in spirit. Why waste a perfectly good Apple II by
running Windows 3.0?
I don't even want to think about knitting together an install. If I did, a
generic real mode Windows 3.0 CGA install can be zipped-up and unzipped onto
a the PC Transporter's "hard-drive" (it's really a ProDOS file) after first
installing on a real MS-DOS PC with a V30 providing one has a hard drive on
the Apple II with the PC Transporter. This install must be perfectly
generic. I've used this method long ago setting-up Windows 3.0 for real PCs.
I have no idea if Virtual PC or DosBOX can be used to knit an install or if
I would need to resort to a real PC. Without trying this, I have no idea if
I could do this on an old 286 or an old 8086 either. Time consuming to
find-out. Someone serious about this can try it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.0
Windows 3.0 will run in 640 x 200 CGA monochrome mode using a V30 in real
mode using 384K of conventional memory. But IIRC even if you have a fast
hard drive on your Apple II for a PC Transporter to use to install Windows
3.0 real mode is dog slow running an application of any consequence.
Windows 3.0 can run in full color except on 8086/88 machines because the
built-in EGA and VGA drivers contained 80186 instructions. However there are
workarounds even for 8086/86 machines. Having said that, both the NEC V20
and V30 support 80186 instructions but the PC transporter supports CGA
graphics only. Where would a person find a BUSS on an Apple II with a PC
Transporter to plug-in an EGA/VGA card even if the EGA/VGA framebuffer at
A000 was available? Nowhere perhaps? Matt mentions B segment. That's the
CGA's 16384 bytes at B800. Do we even know if A segment is available on the
transporter? I don't even want to get into that right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Blaster
When Microsoft announced Multimedia PC (MPC) in November 1990, it suggested
to developers that they use the Sound Blaster as it was the only sound card
that came close to complying with the MPC standard. Where would a person
find a BUSS on an Apple II to plug-in a sound card to be used with a PC
transporter? I don't see a BUSS in the list of accesories that are available
for the PC Transporter. The ADLIB Windows Driver might work for Midi... I
can't remember if I ever used my Adlib Card in Windows 3.X but I think I
did. This is moot though without a BUSS to plug a card into.
Microsoft C 6 can be easily used to write small Windows 3.x Multimedia
Applications. The Windows 3.x Speaker Driver will likely play back a WAV
file through the Apple II speaker (sort-of). The Windows DDK can be used to
write a midi driver that used a serial device for midi out. Maybe through a
super-serial card with an adapter. Writing a driver is easy enough but
there's lots to know.
But real mode primarily existed as a way to run Windows 2.x applications. It
was removed in Windows 3.1x. Almost all applications designed for Windows
3.0 had to be run in standard or 386 enhanced modes.
Guys, this a really stupid thread. Until Windows 3.1 and Multimedia Windows
(1992) the Mac and IIgs were in their own way just as good as Windows.
Unless one needed to run Pagemaker on a PC or something like that, MS-DOS
worked pretty well. I remember very clearly.
What is proposed here can be barely done by someone like me who understands
all the pieces (sort of). Someone like me also lived through all of this,
and had a IIgs with a transporter, a Mac IIci, and all the versions of
Windows, and PCs dating back to my first 4.77 mhz machine. A 386-16 barely
ran Windows 3.1 with Multimedia Extensions. A typical 286 was good enough
for a Soundblaster controlling Midi devices using voyetra in MS-DOS.
So yes I believe this can be done. For what possible purpose I can't even
imagine. If you liked Windows 3.1 like I did, then you probably won't like
Windows 3.0 in CGA mode trying to play back an AVI which if I could even do
it would look frickin terrible and sound frickin awful; the speaker driver
is really horrible. This is all doable I think.
I could cut all this code, but it would be no fun for me.
Bill
Bill Buckels
II developers left. Those who are are unlikely to have the time or
motivation to do this for you. The learning curve on this is pretty steep
unless you are a really smart guy.
My post is sarcastic but presriptive. Start by getting Windows 3.0 set-up
generically. Use the a version if you want.
Send me private mail if any non-trivial questions. I have only limited time
to help. If you are not prepared to do some work don't email me.
Regards,
Bill
Gary Gray
guess. Dog slow. I haven't tried installing any applications on it, but
as far as I know, most of the more interesting programs (like, say
Microsoft Word) I ran back when I was using Windows 3.0 won't run in
real mode.
I think the PC Transporter does have its own speaker, similar to the
built-in PC speaker. Maybe I'll try to find some of the audio playback
demos that were floating around Simet-20 back in the day.
As I recall, you could get the multimedia extensions to sorta work with
a PC speaker driver. (I think I did this on my 386sx before I got a
sound card for it). Obviously, playing a sound brought the system to a
screeching halt. And screeching is the best word for the audio output of
it. I haven't tried any of the extensions on the PC Transporter, but
considering how much Windows itself limps along, I would be surprised if
you managed to get any sound out of it. And if it did work, what you
would get wouldn't be worth the effort.
But, just for the heck of it, I fired up the PC Transporter and Windows
3.0, and am now playing a black & white version of Solitaire ;)
Bill Buckels
> Dog slow.
Bill Buckels wrote:
>Windows 3.0 real mode is dog slow
>most of the more interesting programs (like, say Microsoft Word) I ran
>back when I was using Windows 3.0 won't run in real mode.
Gary Gray wrote:
>As I recall, you could get the multimedia extensions to sorta work with a
>PC speaker driver. (I think I did this on my 386sx before I got a sound
>card for it). Obviously, playing a sound brought the system to a screeching
>halt. And screeching is the best word for the audio output of it.
>Windows 3.0 in CGA mode trying to play back an AVI which if I could even do
>it would look frickin terrible and sound frickin awful; the speaker driver
>is really horrible.
>And if it did work, what you would get wouldn't be worth the effort.
>Just because someone wants to do something it doesn't mean it's a good
>idea.
>But, just for the heck of it, I fired up the PC Transporter and Windows
>3.0, and am now playing a black & white version of Solitaire ;)
including C compiler that you could use directly on your PC transporter to
write whatever you like for Windows 3.0 including a midi sequencer that
plays back though the speaker. But playing soloitaire is probably more
productive:)
Thanks for telling us (me) about your good times:)
> This could be the saner way...
Nothing sane about this guys. I got Windows 1 with my first Microsoft mouse
with the aluminum ball. I also got Word for DOS around the same time.
I used wordstar until I got something better.
A little later on I tried Pagemaker and Windows 2. I used Ventra Publisher
and MS-DOS until Word 6 finally gave us something almost useful. I also
wrote my own editors for Windows 3.1.
It wasn't u8ntil Windows 3.1 that I took a GUI seriously. Mainly because it
meant money in my pocket an not because it was even that good.
But then I think the GS/OS sucks too, and so does System 6 and System 7 on
the Mac. We did have some fun running Unix for Windows on a Mac at one
point, but not the kind of fun that most people would call fun; it was
something like running VB.net under Mono in Linux.
The Apple IIe is where my love lies, and MS-DOS and the Commodore 64.
However if you want to relive bad dreams then I can pass-on some of the
tools and techniques we suffered through.
The worst one of all was a toss-up between writing Windows intallations for
a FileMaker Pro Greeting Card program that was written on the Mac, and
trying to make sense of Truetype Fonts according to the Mac's system
metrics, and writing Think C extensions for a Mac language called prograph
that tried to make designers into programmers; what crap! I think what you
have here is in about the same category as far as something that should be
done!
Lastly, never try to code a midi sequencer in Java using Swing. In fact
never code in Java.
Bill
Bill Buckels
>I do dream of seeing the Windows install screen on a GS or //e.
I forgot to delete.
Get some new dreams bud!
Bill
STYNX
I can understand why someone wants to try windows on the iigs.
(Hell, if i knew how to access a Souldblaster from the Transporter, i would try that.)
And i can understand why most people would say: 'it's stupid'.
Its not for actually using win3, but for trying if its possible.
You of all people should understand why people try to break boundaries defined by "common sense".
(even though in this case the result is pretty much obvious :-P)
We would never get anywhere, if no one tried. ... No need to get into a mood about this.
Anyways, i really appreciate that i now know windows 3.0 on the IIgs possible (but stupid *lol*)
-Jonas
mdj
> For once I think I might agree with Matt in spirit. Why waste a
> perfectly good Apple II by running Windows 3.0?
It's not what *I* would do with a PC Transporter. Personally, I'd use it as a slinky card ....
:-P
Bill Buckels
>You of all people should understand why people try to break boundaries
>defined by "common sense".
case, then I will not decompose a problem.
>Anyways, i really appreciate that i now know windows 3.0 on the IIgs
>possible (but stupid *lol*)
quite different. By that time, Apple's hardware market share was falling and
if Gates and Jobs had worked together instead of Gates with IBM and OSfew...
but then maybe the world wouldn't have the iPhone.
The GS/OS was roughly where Windows 3.1 was in terms of functionality and in
terms of being tightly coupled I don't think we can make a real comparison
until at least Windows XP or possibly even Windows 7. In terms of hardware
capability the IIgs leaves a lot to be desired.
Consider this; if Windows 3.0 is a dog on the IIgs, then what would the
GS/OS have been on an Intel 386-16 with Extended Memory and a Soundblaster
with Midi, and Truecolor SVGA?
So if windows 3.0 on the IIgs proves anything, it proves the above
hypothesis. In reverse. Or does it simply prove that a NEC v30 is no match
for a 386-16?
Bill
Bill Buckels
>For once I think I might agree with Matt in spirit. Why waste a perfectly
>good Apple II by running Windows 3.0?
>Alas... Any inference as to the worthiness of the aforementioned activity
>was entirely incidental.
I'm glad you cleared that up:)
>It's not what *I* would do with a PC Transporter. Personally, I'd use it as
>a slinky card ....
Bill
Scott Alfter
>"STYNX" <Jonas.Gr...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>You of all people should understand why people try to break boundaries
>>defined by "common sense".
>
>Of course. However, if the end result cannot be logically tested as is this
>case, then I will not decompose a problem.
>
>>Anyways, i really appreciate that i now know windows 3.0 on the IIgs
>>possible (but stupid *lol*)
>
>Windows 3.0 sucks.
still had some rickety underpinnings. Windows NT corrected the
rickety-underpinnings bit, but was hobbled by interface issues until 4.0,
and by the time it became common on average desktops, it had changed names
twice and was then being called Windows XP. (Windows 2000 was a decent
desktop, but I don't recall it getting much traction outside the office.)
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
Bill Buckels
>To be honest, it was pretty much unusable before Windows 95
Sun Risc Workstation that I had on my desk when I was doing CAD/CAM in the
mid-80's the desktop computers I had at home and on software development
gigs all sucked for many years.
NT 4 was a blessing. We struggled with NT until then. The first versions of
XP were bug-ridden. Windows 2000 was ok. Vista Sucked. Windows 7 was good
again. And so it goes. I specifically moved from Windows XP to Windows 7 and
froze my stuff there because my eyes can't see a tablet or an iPhone.
Windows 95 and Windows 98 each improved on Windows 3.1 and WFW. Windows 98
was really my favorite of the MS-DOS Windows; Windows ME didn't do much for
me.
Macs were generally out of reach for most people's budgets around here. They
are way nicer than Windows machines now. I simply refuse to spend that kind
of money.
But to bring this back to the Apple II and things like the PC Transporter;
it took absolutely nothing when the PC transporter was around to throw
together a cheap PC out of old parts and stick a 1.2 meg and 1.44 meg drive
into it for almost zero dollars. The cost was not justified for what it was.
Back then I could do a governmnent auction and grab old PC's for dirt cost.
I had hundreds of 1.2 meg drives sitting here with dozens of HP inkjet
printers and all the rest of it for a few hundred dollars. Old 386's and
486's and Pentiums were plentiful. I tossed them after grabbing the useful
parts.
My interest with the Apple II is purely forensic. It is a fun toy. The GS/OS
is a serious GUI. It's too bad it didn't have better hardware to run on
considering what crap Windows 3.0 was.
Running Windows 3.0 on NEC V30 plugged into a IIgs seems a little like
taking the worst possible hardware and running the worst possible OS on it.
Bill
cke...@gmail.com
> <cke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do dream of seeing the Windows install screen on a GS or //e.
>
> I don't. See my other post in this thread. There are really very few Appple
> II developers left. Those who are are unlikely to have the time or
> motivation to do this for you. The learning curve on this is pretty steep
> unless you are a really smart guy.
Don't worry, I'm not looking to waste anyone's time except mine. In fact, I fully
expect that the moment I achieve seeing the install screen I'll have regretted
wasting the 16 hours I'll never get back :-) I might even be happier finding a
YouTube screen cap of the same thing.
More practically, I'd like to get a very early version of Word for Windows running
on Windows 3.0, or whatever might have been available for Windows 2.11. But,
I did a bit of investigation around the web and Wikipedia a few weeks ago (and
the knowledge has mostly been lost to the sands of time), and it's very hard to
find exactly which versions of Word for Windows required which versions of
Windows.
My personal experience around the years 1988-1990 was with Ami Pro (later
renamed Lotus Word Pro) and I do remember that it was the *only* GUI word
processor for Windows at a time when WordPerfect and Word for DOS were
king on the PC desktop. Everybody was looking to Microsoft to hurry up and
make a fully Windows version of Word, and asking why they hadn't simply
copied everything they had made many years earlier for Word for Mac.
This is why I have a feeling there was no Word for (Windows 2.11).
Excel for Windows ... not sure. Anyway I'd like to get anything from the
MS Office suite up and running on an Apple // though I fully appreciate that
the most (and possibly only) realistic way to achieve that is with the DOS
versions alone.
> Send me private mail if any non-trivial questions. I have only limited time
> to help. If you are not prepared to do some work don't email me.
listen to others who have got Windows 3.0 running on PC Transporter.
And they do exist.
My first PC actually had the PC Speaker driver and I used it quite heavily.
So that is something I fully intend to try. I do remember its drawbacks
quite clearly.
CK.
Steve Nickolas
> More practically, I'd like to get a very early version of Word for Windows running
> on Windows 3.0, or whatever might have been available for Windows 2.11. But,
> I did a bit of investigation around the web and Wikipedia a few weeks ago (and
> the knowledge has mostly been lost to the sands of time), and it's very hard to
> find exactly which versions of Word for Windows required which versions of
> Windows.
> My personal experience around the years 1988-1990 was with Ami Pro (later
> renamed Lotus Word Pro) and I do remember that it was the *only* GUI word
> processor for Windows at a time when WordPerfect and Word for DOS were
> king on the PC desktop. Everybody was looking to Microsoft to hurry up and
> make a fully Windows version of Word, and asking why they hadn't simply
> copied everything they had made many years earlier for Word for Mac.
>
> This is why I have a feeling there was no Word for (Windows 2.11).
>
> Excel for Windows ... not sure. Anyway I'd like to get anything from the
> MS Office suite up and running on an Apple // though I fully appreciate that
> the most (and possibly only) realistic way to achieve that is with the DOS
> versions alone.
-uso.