Windows for Workgoups 3.11 Stabilization & Performance

edited August 2004 in Software
Have someone tips howto stabalize win 3.11 and gain some performance.
it runs on a 486-33, 8 Megs
«1

Comments

  • put on winnt 3.1
    thats how to get stilbility.
  • Topher wrote:
    put on winnt 3.1
    thats how to get stilbility.

    what? Just barely man...theres barely any driver support for it. Plus NT 3.1 would run like crap on a 486-33

    WFW 3.11 & DOS is stable enough for that machine.
  • Topher wrote:
    put on winnt 3.1
    thats how to get stilbility.

    what? Just barely man...theres barely any driver support for it. Plus NT 3.1 would run like crap on a 486-33

    WFW 3.11 & DOS is stable enough for that machine.

    It runs like crap on Pentium 4 too.
  • If you gonna use a Windows NT 3.1x ....use Windows NT 3.5 or Windows NT 3.51...but I would use it only with 12MB or more and over 75mhz...at least a pentium for real nice performance.
  • Or with Win3.1 you can lower the Virutal memory and also run it in Real Mode. I think the syntax to run winndows in realmode is WIN.COM /V
  • The Comp has now 20 Megs and a Cyrix 486DX4-100 (before it was an Intel DX4-PR75, on the heatsink stands something like overdrive), also a new Soundcard, and a NE2000-compatible (ever networked a winxp with 3.11? freaky) :) It rockz really now, in program manager is he even faster then my p3-500/192 Megs in explorer (if you look here you understand why lol)
  • Why do you think Windows NT 3.1 is more faster than 3.11 FWG? It works very slow even on a virtual machine. I think better is to install Windows 3.1.
  • scratchy wrote:
    The Comp has now 20 Megs and a Cyrix 486DX4-100 (before it was an Intel DX4-PR75, on the heatsink stands something like overdrive), also a new Soundcard, and a NE2000-compatible (ever networked a winxp with 3.11? freaky) :) It rockz really now, in program manager is he even faster then my p3-500/192 Megs in explorer (if you look here you understand why lol)

    Well thats good now. I'd definatly shoot for Windows 95 on that machine but I'm tellin' ya Windows 3.11 and DOS 6.22, you'll be fine with them. Network it up and hook it up to the internet. Download IE 5.0 and you'll be almost up to date. lol.
  • IE 5.0 works very slow on all 486's, especially the version for Windows 3.1x
  • nah...itd run fune on a 486-120mhz...the fatest 486 out there. You just gotta have a good amount of RAM too.
  • I ran IE5 on 486-133MHz, but with 8MB of ram. It was slow as hell!
  • I've run IE 5 on a 20Mhz 386...it didn't run that bad...

    you know...that screen shot almost looks like longhorn.
  • Oooh, maybe it was IE3?
  • nope...I really tried IE 5. For some reason IE 4 never installed right and wouldn't run, and 3.03 just couldn't handle enough...
  • That's strange.. How much RAM were you using? 32Mb?
  • lol...8... I know I said it ran well..but what I mean by well is it didn't run noticeably slower then everything else on the system. It was the first computer in my room so I sorta got used to lag and thought nothing of it.
  • Again I repeat it was slow as hell on AMD486/8Mb RAM. How'd you make it run so fast on such a slow machine?
  • well...for starters it was an intel not an amd...
  • The very first versions of AMD (up to 5x86) were worse than intels... maybe that was the problem...
    But I cannot understand why 20MHz intel works faster than 133MHz AMD?
  • well... works slowly meaning what? At the time I was using a 28k modem...so maybe the fact that a higher speed modem wasn't sending data faster then the computer could handle.
  • No, the problem is not in modem. The problem that it took ~1Minute to start IE5 there.
  • a minute...hrm...I don't remember how long it took, also...I was using aol 3.0 but it's built in browser sucked (hey it still does today even if it is using IE).

    I WANT FIREFOX 16-BIT!!!! Even if it relies on win32s to funtion, someone should figure out how to do it.
  • Try 16Bit Opera. It's excellent!
  • well...I don't use 3.x and below much these days. Since I got a wireless network I have some ideas on how to get them to work (obvisouly wireless network adapters aren't going to work). As soon as I get a network card I will wire two computers together and do some connection sharing thing. Do I need a crossover cable or does a regular network cable work for that?
  • I guess regular network cable will work great.
  • Well...if it doesn't I could just cut the ends off and cross the wires the crossover way. Now all I need is to get a network card for my pentium 1. I guess I could also do this with my 386 and 486, but that would require ISA. Did they make ISA 10/100 cards that use cat 5e network cables?
  • Yeah, there were ISA network cards compatible with 10Mbps... but not 100mbps, slow ISA slot cannot support that.
  • CAT5e is just the type of wire the cable uses. As long as it's a RJ45 connection it will do. I had a 10/100 nic that was EISA. I tossed it out today a matter of fact. Damn thing hardly worked right. Go on ebay and you can score a 3com 10MB ISA nic easily.
  • when school starts I can get my hands on one also easily.
  • TCPMeta wrote:
    CAT5e is just the type of wire the cable uses. As long as it's a RJ45 connection it will do. I had a 10/100 nic that was EISA. I tossed it out today a matter of fact. Damn thing hardly worked right. Go on ebay and you can score a 3com 10MB ISA nic easily.

    EISA is an Enhanced version of ISA, thats why it can run faster cards. Its slower than PCI I think though. Itll run ISA cards also. I got a few mainboards with EISA/PCI. I only got like 2 EISA NICs though and I think the integerated one runs off the EISA bus.

    One thing that I just thought of. ISA cant run 10/100, good thing I didnt get a 10/100 PCMCIA card. Acording to IBM, My PCMCIA controller runs off an ISA bus, no use getting a 10/100 PC Card then.
Sign In or Register to comment.