Hacker News Reader

Comment by santoshalper | Hacker News Reader

I too spent a lot of formative years on a 286, envying my friends who all had 386s and could run Windows and play cooler games.

View on HN

Windows ran fine on a 286. Even with just 1 MB of RAM. You just couldn't launch more than a couple of big applications at a time without severe swapping.

Yep, you could run 3.1 in "real mode" instead of "protected mode" but the 286 was kind of a dog of a CPU and it had some pretty nasty flaws that led to 286 machines not really being all that common compared to 80886 and 386 ones.

3.1 couldn’t run in real mode. It could run either in standard mode or in enhanced mode. The enhanced mode was 386-only. 3.0 on the other hand could run in real mode so it technically could be used with 8086.

You're right, I had Real and Standard mixed up. You definitely didn't want to run 3.0, though. That was a complete mess, and the beginning point of where Microsoft started to make a turn-around in stability.

3.0 would crash every 15 minutes on average. 3.1 would crash every 45 minutes on average. 95 would go a day at a time, 98 would go several days, XP was stable a month at a time when there weren't major exploits or bad driver behavior.

...and so on. I may be overstating the impact SLIGHTLY, but 3.0 really was crash prone to the point magazines heavily pushed people to 3.1 when that came out, and 95 was definitely significantly improved over that, and so forth (skipping ME, of course) until XP.

In my experience, Windows 98 crashed more often, mostly due to running out of "resources". Windows 98 GUI was more complex, thus wasting more of these "resources", running out and crashing.

XP, on the other hand, practically never crashed, unless you had bad drivers. Just like Windows NT4 & 2000 before it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com