Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 9th Feb 2013 18:54 UTC
Windows "The 16-bit Windows kernel was actually three kernels. One if you were using an 8086 processor, another if you were using an 80286 processor, and a third if you were using an 80386 processor. The 8086 kernel was a completely separate beast, but the 80286 and 80386 kernels shared a lot of code in common." As always, Raymond Chen delivers. If you don't yet follow his blog, you should. Right now. Click that bookmark or RSS button.
Thread beginning with comment 552015
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No it isnt
Member since:

My God Windows 3.0 sucked on the 286.

Reply Score: 5

siride Member since:

So did every other OS, by modern standards.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Alfman Member since:

By the standards of the day, I suspect DOS worked as well on the 286 as it did on the 386. But yea if by modern OS you mean something that used protected mode for process isolation and timeslicing, then 386 was the first serious intel processor for that.

It predates my experience, but my understanding is that the 286 included a very buggy form of protected mode, and lacked VM86 real mode virtualization. The silly engineers at intel failed to include a way to switch the processor out of protected mode, so the chipset makers actually incorporated external logic to do a hard reset on the processor every time one needed to switch between real mode programs.

So this is how windows multitasked on the 286, by continually rebooting the cpu - a feature MS continued to include a couple generations later. I kid ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

No it isnt Member since:

Actually, GEM Desktop was very robust on the 8086 compared to Windows 3.0. Of course, it sucked in different ways, mostly due to Apple being litigious bastards even back then. They invented overlapping windows, you see.

Reply Parent Score: 6