I am trying to run Windows 95B under PCx on a Powermac G3 with 224 megs RAM.
The installation proceeded without error but Windows will not start from the hard file.
It says insufficient extended memory.
The BIOS message indicates it has 15 megs extended memory allocated and I have
tried it with and without himem.sys in config.sys.
Should it be possible to run Windows 95B under PCx or is it limited to Windows 3.1?

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

Do you mean a pc card in a g3 mac under os9 ?


On 30/7/06 10:05 AM, in article aetnc25abann2bfqnjt443va60bo8bnj48@4ax.com,
"Barry OGrady" <god_free_jones******.com> wrote:

> I am trying to run Windows 95B under PCx on a Powermac G3 with 224 megs RAM.
> The installation proceeded without error but Windows will not start from the
> hard file.
> It says insufficient extended memory.
> The BIOS message indicates it has 15 megs extended memory allocated and I have
> tried it with and without himem.sys in config.sys.
> Should it be possible to run Windows 95B under PCx or is it limited to Windows
> 3.1?
>
> Barry
> =====
> Home page
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

Do you mean a pc card in a g3 mac under os9 ?


On 30/7/06 10:05 AM, in article aetnc25abann2bfqnjt443va60bo8bnj48@4ax.com,
"Barry OGrady" <god_free_jones******.com> wrote:

> I am trying to run Windows 95B under PCx on a Powermac G3 with 224 megs RAM.
> The installation proceeded without error but Windows will not start from the
> hard file.
> It says insufficient extended memory.
> The BIOS message indicates it has 15 megs extended memory allocated and I have
> tried it with and without himem.sys in config.sys.
> Should it be possible to run Windows 95B under PCx or is it limited to Windows
> 3.1?
>
> Barry
> =====
> Home page
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:17:34 GMT, Andrew <macguru@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>On 30/7/06 10:05 AM, in article aetnc25abann2bfqnjt443va60bo8bnj48@4ax.com,
>"Barry OGrady" <god_free_jones******.com> wrote:
>
>> I am trying to run Windows 95B under PCx on a Powermac G3 with 224 megs RAM.
>> The installation proceeded without error but Windows will not start from the
>> hard file.
>> It says insufficient extended memory.
>> The BIOS message indicates it has 15 megs extended memory allocated and I have
>> tried it with and without himem.sys in config.sys.
>> Should it be possible to run Windows 95B under PCx or is it limited to Windows
>> 3.1?
>
>Do you mean a pc card in a g3 mac under os9 ?

No. I mean the software alternative called PCx.
I have Windows 95B running on a 7200/75 with a PC card.

>> Barry

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:17:34 GMT, Andrew <macguru@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>On 30/7/06 10:05 AM, in article aetnc25abann2bfqnjt443va60bo8bnj48@4ax.com,
>"Barry OGrady" <god_free_jones******.com> wrote:
>
>> I am trying to run Windows 95B under PCx on a Powermac G3 with 224 megs RAM.
>> The installation proceeded without error but Windows will not start from the
>> hard file.
>> It says insufficient extended memory.
>> The BIOS message indicates it has 15 megs extended memory allocated and I have
>> tried it with and without himem.sys in config.sys.
>> Should it be possible to run Windows 95B under PCx or is it limited to Windows
>> 3.1?
>
>Do you mean a pc card in a g3 mac under os9 ?

No. I mean the software alternative called PCx.
I have Windows 95B running on a 7200/75 with a PC card.

>> Barry

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:05:17 +1000, Barry OGrady wrote:

> I am trying to run Windows 95B under PCx
[...]
> Should it be possible to run
> Windows 95B under PCx or is it limited to Windows 3.1?

PCx can run 3.1?

PCx AFAIK, hasn't been updated in years, has limited vga support and no
sound... Would it have networking? I doubt it.

--
dee

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:05:17 +1000, Barry OGrady wrote:

> I am trying to run Windows 95B under PCx
[...]
> Should it be possible to run
> Windows 95B under PCx or is it limited to Windows 3.1?

PCx can run 3.1?

PCx AFAIK, hasn't been updated in years, has limited vga support and no
sound... Would it have networking? I doubt it.

--
dee

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:42:52 +1000, Mike Dee <emteedee@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:05:17 +1000, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> I am trying to run Windows 95B under PCx
>[...]
>> Should it be possible to run
>> Windows 95B under PCx or is it limited to Windows 3.1?
>
>PCx can run 3.1?

Yes, according to its author.

>PCx AFAIK, hasn't been updated in years, has limited vga support and no
>sound... Would it have networking? I doubt it.

All of that is correct.
The author makes no mention of Windows 95 but does indicate it has limited
capabilities.
If Windows 95B is not a go I will put Windows 3.11 (WFW) on it.

>--
>dee

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:42:52 +1000, Mike Dee <emteedee@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:05:17 +1000, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> I am trying to run Windows 95B under PCx
>[...]
>> Should it be possible to run
>> Windows 95B under PCx or is it limited to Windows 3.1?
>
>PCx can run 3.1?

Yes, according to its author.

>PCx AFAIK, hasn't been updated in years, has limited vga support and no
>sound... Would it have networking? I doubt it.

All of that is correct.
The author makes no mention of Windows 95 but does indicate it has limited
capabilities.
If Windows 95B is not a go I will put Windows 3.11 (WFW) on it.

>--
>dee

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:42:42 +1000, Barry OGrady wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:42:52 +1000, Mike Dee <emteedee@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:

>>PCx AFAIK, hasn't been updated in years, has limited vga support and no
>>sound... Would it have networking? I doubt it.
>
> All of that is correct.
> The author makes no mention of Windows 95 but does indicate it has limited
> capabilities.
> If Windows 95B is not a go I will put Windows 3.11 (WFW) on it.

I don't think 95b will be much of a success if it runs at all. The author
in his "Read Me 1st" SimpleText doc says PCx runs Win 3.1 fine _in
standard mode_, and indicates that there could be problems if you run some
programs that require MMU, he also recommends not using EMM386. I think if
you do get 95b to run, then the 16 MB RAM ceiling will be an issue. I
don't know if you can run 95b in standard mode either, so if extended
modes a problem in 3.1 then it probably will also be the case for 95b.

Good luck with it. My gut feeling is that you'd be better off finding an
old copy of Virtual PC or even Real PC on ebay etc, at least you'd be able
to run 3.1 & 95b with networking on the G3 and allocate more RAM to the
emulation.

--
dee

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:42:42 +1000, Barry OGrady wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:42:52 +1000, Mike Dee <emteedee@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:

>>PCx AFAIK, hasn't been updated in years, has limited vga support and no
>>sound... Would it have networking? I doubt it.
>
> All of that is correct.
> The author makes no mention of Windows 95 but does indicate it has limited
> capabilities.
> If Windows 95B is not a go I will put Windows 3.11 (WFW) on it.

I don't think 95b will be much of a success if it runs at all. The author
in his "Read Me 1st" SimpleText doc says PCx runs Win 3.1 fine _in
standard mode_, and indicates that there could be problems if you run some
programs that require MMU, he also recommends not using EMM386. I think if
you do get 95b to run, then the 16 MB RAM ceiling will be an issue. I
don't know if you can run 95b in standard mode either, so if extended
modes a problem in 3.1 then it probably will also be the case for 95b.

Good luck with it. My gut feeling is that you'd be better off finding an
old copy of Virtual PC or even Real PC on ebay etc, at least you'd be able
to run 3.1 & 95b with networking on the G3 and allocate more RAM to the
emulation.

--
dee

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:49:17 +1000, Mike Dee <emteedee@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:42:42 +1000, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:42:52 +1000, Mike Dee <emteedee@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
>>>PCx AFAIK, hasn't been updated in years, has limited vga support and no
>>>sound... Would it have networking? I doubt it.
>>
>> All of that is correct.
>> The author makes no mention of Windows 95 but does indicate it has limited
>> capabilities.
>> If Windows 95B is not a go I will put Windows 3.11 (WFW) on it.
>
>I don't think 95b will be much of a success if it runs at all. The author
>in his "Read Me 1st" SimpleText doc says PCx runs Win 3.1 fine _in
>standard mode_, and indicates that there could be problems if you run some
>programs that require MMU, he also recommends not using EMM386. I think if
>you do get 95b to run, then the 16 MB RAM ceiling will be an issue. I
>don't know if you can run 95b in standard mode either, so if extended
>modes a problem in 3.1 then it probably will also be the case for 95b.

I think you are right, except that Windows 95B will run on a 386 with 4 megs RAM.
I have run Win 95B on a 386SX/25 with 4 megs RAM and a 200 meg HD.

>Good luck with it. My gut feeling is that you'd be better off finding an
>old copy of Virtual PC or even Real PC on ebay etc, at least you'd be able
>to run 3.1 & 95b with networking on the G3 and allocate more RAM to the
>emulation.

I'll take your advice.

>--
>dee

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:49:17 +1000, Mike Dee <emteedee@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:42:42 +1000, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:42:52 +1000, Mike Dee <emteedee@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
>>>PCx AFAIK, hasn't been updated in years, has limited vga support and no
>>>sound... Would it have networking? I doubt it.
>>
>> All of that is correct.
>> The author makes no mention of Windows 95 but does indicate it has limited
>> capabilities.
>> If Windows 95B is not a go I will put Windows 3.11 (WFW) on it.
>
>I don't think 95b will be much of a success if it runs at all. The author
>in his "Read Me 1st" SimpleText doc says PCx runs Win 3.1 fine _in
>standard mode_, and indicates that there could be problems if you run some
>programs that require MMU, he also recommends not using EMM386. I think if
>you do get 95b to run, then the 16 MB RAM ceiling will be an issue. I
>don't know if you can run 95b in standard mode either, so if extended
>modes a problem in 3.1 then it probably will also be the case for 95b.

I think you are right, except that Windows 95B will run on a 386 with 4 megs RAM.
I have run Win 95B on a 386SX/25 with 4 megs RAM and a 200 meg HD.

>Good luck with it. My gut feeling is that you'd be better off finding an
>old copy of Virtual PC or even Real PC on ebay etc, at least you'd be able
>to run 3.1 & 95b with networking on the G3 and allocate more RAM to the
>emulation.

I'll take your advice.

>--
>dee

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:53:15 +1000, Barry OGrady wrote:

> I think you are right, except that Windows 95B will run on a 386 with 4
> megs RAM. I have run Win 95B on a 386SX/25 with 4 megs RAM and a 200 meg
> HD.

Hmmm... in this description I think you are confusing "running" with
riding a pushbike from Lithgow up to the Bells Line of Road ;-)

>>Good luck with it. My gut feeling is that you'd be better off finding an
>>old copy of Virtual PC or even Real PC on ebay etc, at least you'd be
>>able to run 3.1 & 95b with networking on the G3 and allocate more RAM to
>>the emulation.
>
> I'll take your advice.

I have Virtual PC version 3.0 on a beige G3 running under Mac OS 9.x
I have also had VPC version 2.0 running on the same machine and OS,
both give you access to 100+ MB RAM, with 4 MB S3 video emulation, full
emulation for DOS, Win 3x, and Win 95b, including TCP/IP networking. I
have also had Win 98 running on Version 3.0 of VPC, but found this too
slow to want to use for practical reasons (the shareware, 98lite helped
speed things up a bit).

VPC version 2 requires an updater to get it to run on Mac OS's
later than 8.5

You can get newer versions of VPC to run on the above Mac and OS, but
these two are very inexpensive to buy if you come across a used copy, and
they run Windows up to 95b really well on a "classic" Mac OS.

The "DOS only" releases of VPC are usually the cheapest to buy, and it's
easy to install Windows to them if you own your own copies of Windows.

--
dee

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:53:15 +1000, Barry OGrady wrote:

> I think you are right, except that Windows 95B will run on a 386 with 4
> megs RAM. I have run Win 95B on a 386SX/25 with 4 megs RAM and a 200 meg
> HD.

Hmmm... in this description I think you are confusing "running" with
riding a pushbike from Lithgow up to the Bells Line of Road ;-)

>>Good luck with it. My gut feeling is that you'd be better off finding an
>>old copy of Virtual PC or even Real PC on ebay etc, at least you'd be
>>able to run 3.1 & 95b with networking on the G3 and allocate more RAM to
>>the emulation.
>
> I'll take your advice.

I have Virtual PC version 3.0 on a beige G3 running under Mac OS 9.x
I have also had VPC version 2.0 running on the same machine and OS,
both give you access to 100+ MB RAM, with 4 MB S3 video emulation, full
emulation for DOS, Win 3x, and Win 95b, including TCP/IP networking. I
have also had Win 98 running on Version 3.0 of VPC, but found this too
slow to want to use for practical reasons (the shareware, 98lite helped
speed things up a bit).

VPC version 2 requires an updater to get it to run on Mac OS's
later than 8.5

You can get newer versions of VPC to run on the above Mac and OS, but
these two are very inexpensive to buy if you come across a used copy, and
they run Windows up to 95b really well on a "classic" Mac OS.

The "DOS only" releases of VPC are usually the cheapest to buy, and it's
easy to install Windows to them if you own your own copies of Windows.

--
dee