Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
with low starting price and no reserve.
A real rarity in almost new condition
Thanks for looking.
Norm

Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:46:01 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
wrote:

>Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
>based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
>with low starting price and no reserve.

>
>
>A real rarity in almost new condition
>
>Thanks for looking.
>
Norm

Cripes. I still have my Windows/386, too. And Windows/286. And
Windows 3.0, and 3.1. I even have Windows 2.0, but it wasn't worth
playing with -- a mere toy in my experience. The first version that
actually was decently usable was /386, I think. I have my old
Microsoft C compilers, BASIC compilers, etc. Quite a shelf of boxes
with books and floppies. Along with my 4-volume IBM PC/AT Technical
Reference set, which I won't part with.

Jon

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:46:01 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
wrote:
>
>Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
>based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
>with low starting price and no reserve.

>
>
>A real rarity in almost new condition
>
>Thanks for looking.
>
Norm

Cripes. I still have my Windows/386, too. And Windows/286. And
Windows 3.0, and 3.1. I even have Windows 2.0, but it wasn't worth
playing with -- a mere toy in my experience. The first version that
actually was decently usable was /386, I think. I have my old
Microsoft C compilers, BASIC compilers, etc. Quite a shelf of boxes
with books and floppies. Along with my 4-volume IBM PC/AT Technical
Reference set, which I won't part with.

I have a copy of windows 1.0 that will install on a floppy. It is fun
to play with.

Jon

7 Feb 2006 12:48:34 -0800, "Bill H" <bill@ts1000.uswrote:

>
>Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:46:01 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>Windows/386 came between Windows 2.0 and 3.0 and provided true multitasking
>>based on the capabilities of the then-new Intel 80386 CPU. Auction on eBay
>>with low starting price and no reserve.
>
>>
>>
>>A real rarity in almost new condition
>>
>>Thanks for looking.
>>
>Norm
>>
>Cripes. I still have my Windows/386, too. And Windows/286. And
>Windows 3.0, and 3.1. I even have Windows 2.0, but it wasn't worth
>playing with -- a mere toy in my experience. The first version that
>actually was decently usable was /386, I think. I have my old
>Microsoft C compilers, BASIC compilers, etc. Quite a shelf of boxes
>with books and floppies. Along with my 4-volume IBM PC/AT Technical
>Reference set, which I won't part with.
>
>I have a copy of windows 1.0 that will install on a floppy. It is fun
>to play with.

My memory fades at this point, as to whether I have 1.0. I might, if
I rummaged my attic for it. But I can't be sure. It wasn't until I
started using Windows/286 and /386, that I found some programs and
development on it tolerable, speedwise and crash-wise, and could even
start to consider the idea of writing applications for it.

Having to write Windows programs back then (and the low level docs
that Microsoft was forced to provide then) gave me a clear picture of
the core design that made later understanding of MFC both trivial as
well as knowing how to dig into the MFC code to find what I needed to
know when Microsoft's docs failed or to modify it for competitive
programs when Microsoft was trying to push "users" into rather less
competitive and commonly-used paths of MFC (which they made easy to
access, but which wasn't so often a good way of handling things.)
Today, it is nearly impossible to find the kinds of really good docs
on those basic concepts which still apply in general concept at a very
low level and are still available to those who care about it.

Jon

A real rarity in almost new condition
I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.

Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:31:37 -0500, "JohnH" <johnharlow@gmail.com>
wrote:

>A real rarity in almost new condition
>
>I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.

Well, in the past Microsoft has guaranteed to me the ability to secure
replacement floppies, should they be unreadable. It was for a
different product and it has been some years since I last needed to
ask about such things. But the product was old then and no longer
sold. So I would consider it at least a remote possibility, if one
can demonstrate ownership to their satisfaction.

Jon

"JohnH" <johnharlow@gmail.comwrote in message
news:G7SdnRZft7IkjHTeRVn-tg@comcast.com
>A real rarity in almost new condition
>
I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.

John -- I'm the seller. I haven't put the disks into the computer because I
wanted to preserve the claim that they're totally unused. But I just
checked the 3-1/2" floppy disk that was in the IBM DS Tech Reference Manual
I just listed and it reads fine on my 1-year old Dell. That's from 1987 and
both products were stored in the same offices for over 15 years.

Norm

Norm Dresner wrote:
"JohnH" <johnharlow@gmail.comwrote in message
news:G7SdnRZft7IkjHTeRVn-tg@comcast.com
A real rarity in almost new condition
>>
>I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.
>
John -- I'm the seller. I haven't put the disks into the computer
because I wanted to preserve the claim that they're totally unused. But I
just checked the 3-1/2" floppy disk that was in the IBM DS
Tech Reference Manual I just listed and it reads fine on my 1-year
old Dell. That's from 1987 and both products were stored in the same
offices for over 15 years.
Norm

Sounds good. I've had varying success with old diskettes myself; then again
most of mine have doubled at some point as coasters ;)

Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:59:26 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
wrote:

>"JohnH" <johnharlow@gmail.comwrote in message
>news:G7SdnRZft7IkjHTeRVn-tg@comcast.com
A real rarity in almost new condition
>>
>I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.
>
>John -- I'm the seller. I haven't put the disks into the computer because I
>wanted to preserve the claim that they're totally unused. But I just
>checked the 3-1/2" floppy disk that was in the IBM DS Tech Reference Manual
>I just listed and it reads fine on my 1-year old Dell. That's from 1987 and
>both products were stored in the same offices for over 15 years.

You really should check the disks

Also, ideally back up images of them onto a CD

I wrote an old dos utility for doing that

Somehow I doubt that MS would provide new copies

"J French" <erewhon@nowhere.ukwrote in message
news:43e9b945.74256993@news.btopenworld.com
Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:59:26 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
wrote:
>
>>"JohnH" <johnharlow@gmail.comwrote in message
>>news:G7SdnRZft7IkjHTeRVn-tg@comcast.com
A real rarity in almost new condition

I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.
>>
>>John -- I'm the seller. I haven't put the disks into the computer because
>>I
>>wanted to preserve the claim that they're totally unused. But I just
>>checked the 3-1/2" floppy disk that was in the IBM DS Tech Reference
>>Manual
>>I just listed and it reads fine on my 1-year old Dell. That's from 1987
>>and
>>both products were stored in the same offices for over 15 years.
>
You really should check the disks

Also, ideally back up images of them onto a CD

I wrote an old dos utility for doing that

Somehow I doubt that MS would provide new copies

As a paying MSDN member, I can get new copies of DS 5.0 - 6.22 and Windows
3.1, 3.11, and WfW 3.11 just by downloading them -- if I don't already have
the disks as part of my subscription. They don't have any older versions on
the website, but I'm going to ask about it in their newsgroup.

Norm

Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:29:09 +0000 (UTC), erewhon@nowhere.uk (J French)
wrote:

Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:59:26 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"JohnH" <johnharlow@gmail.comwrote in message
>>news:G7SdnRZft7IkjHTeRVn-tg@comcast.com
A real rarity in almost new condition

I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.
>>
>>John -- I'm the seller. I haven't put the disks into the computer because I
>>wanted to preserve the claim that they're totally unused. But I just
>>checked the 3-1/2" floppy disk that was in the IBM DS Tech Reference Manual
>>I just listed and it reads fine on my 1-year old Dell. That's from 1987 and
>>both products were stored in the same offices for over 15 years.
>
>You really should check the disks
>
>Also, ideally back up images of them onto a CD
>
>I wrote an old dos utility for doing that
>
>
>
>Somehow I doubt that MS would provide new copies
Make sure they are write protected before you check them.
Windows will overwrite the EMName field in the bootsector
in the name of Volume Tracking.

<Wildman>

>I wonder if the diskettes are even still readable.

SS 5.25" floppy formats will NT be readable under XP due to limitations in the S.
This includes 160k and 180k formats. I have a 2G FAT16 partition with DS 6.22
so I can read the old single-sided floppies when needed (rarely).

In general, any of the NT-ish Ses (NT/2000/XP) are pretty bad at floppy handling,
at least under 95/98 one could lock the drive and use DS utils, but even a minor
CRC error in the file slack will stop XP dead in it's tracks. DS will allow
utilities that can read through errors to allow data recovery. So the other use
for the DS partition is to deal with floppies in general, formatting & reading
and verifying -- by really re-reading the darn thing. ;-)