<CT> Re: Win 3.11 (what??)/old:What is Windows for Workgroups???

  • From: "Cristina-Mauricio Z.O (Col.)" <zapataossa@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "Calmira Tips" <calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:06:41 -0500

Look what I had in the loft...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erwin Dokter" <edokter@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 1999 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: <CT> What is Windows for Workgroups???

> Greg Fundyler wrote:
> > I hear everyone on the list talking about WfWG.  What is
> > it?  How is it better than plain Windows?  How is it worse?
> > Why is it called Windows for *WORKGROUPS*?  Can you
> > guys make a comparison of Windows and WfWG?  I would
> > enjoy it.  Thanks.
> Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is an update to Windows 3.1 with several new
> features. The "workgroups" stand for a group of people (computers) that
> can share their resources (disks and printers) with each other. It is a
> peer-to-peer network, where every computer acts as a server, as opposed
> to a client-server network, where one computer is the server, and the
> rest are clients.
> This is only usefull with under ten users, since managing such a network
> is not centralized (each user needs to manage it's own computer.) It
> also offer native windows network drivers to connect to other networks,
> without the need to load any real mode DOS drivers.
> Other then that, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 offers much improvement in
> performence; next to 32-bit disk access in Windows 3.1, it also
> introduced 32-bit file access (vfat and vcache, eliminating the need for
> smartdrive) and enhanced mode communication drivers; all these were
> 'testbeds' for Windows 95.
> The main thing is (as a step toward Windows 95), WfW 3.11 needs to
> switch the CPU to real mode a lot less times then plain 3.1 to perform
> all the above tasks (which is a speed killer).
> As an example: Thanks to the built in Network functionality, when I get
> a cable modem, I can use native windows (virtual) device drivers to let
> my network card connect to it. In windows 3.1, I would have to use DOS
> network drivers.
> While I'm at tech talk :) let me explain about the difference between
> 16- and 32-bit windows... There seems to be a little confusions.
> There are two things to concider: wether a program (such as Windows)
> runs with the CPU switched to real or protected mode, and how a windows
> application adresses memory.
> Most people would laugh in my face for saying this, but Windows 3.1 is
> 32-bit! When windows starts, it switches the CPU in protected mode,
> enabling Windows to adress memory above 640 KB. Windows 2.0 could not do
> this yet, so it ran in "real mode". Windows 3.0 introduced "Standard"
> and "Enhanced" mode; When run in Standard mode, it could run in
> protected mode, but had to switch back to real mode whenever it had to
> access a device, because the (.DRV) device drivers could not run in
> (CPU) protected mode. In Enhaced mode, Windows uses (.386) virtual
> device drivers, so windows does not have to switch the CPU back in real
> mode.
> Still following?
> When I say windows 3.1 is 32-bit, I refer to the fact that windows (the
> kernel) itself can access the memory in linear mode (because it runs in
> protected mode). Windows 3.1 applications however, are limited to
> addressing memory up to 64 KB at a time (segemented memory adressing).
> This is commonly known as "16-bit". This because Windows' memory
> managment isn't so sophisticated as that in NT or 95, where programs can
> use linear adressing as well (32-bit).
> The "32-bit" disk and file access however, refer to that fact that
> windows can access a disk drive in protected mode instead of real mode;
> nothing to do with memory adressing! Windows 3.1, even when running in
> enhanced mode, still has to switch the CPU back to real mode in order to
> access the drives when 32-bit disk access is turned off (or, when 32-bit
> file acces is turned off, it has to use smartdrive.)
> On my machine, the only time when WfW 3.11 has to switch back to real
> mode is when accessing the floppy drive or the CD-ROM (or in case of win
> 3.1, the network card as well).
> Windows 95 does NOT have "16 bit components" in it. All it's programs
> use linear adressing, and ALL devices (including floppys and CD-ROMs)
> are 'virtualized' (using protected mode drivers). Only when running
> 16-bit programs, will it have to accomodate for the segmented adressing
> these programs use (memory thunking). And when it has to use a real mode
> driver, it switches to "MS-DOS compatibility mode".
> I hope this answeres some questions in the 16/32 bit discussion...
> -- Erwin Dokter

----- Original Message -----
To: "calmira_tips digest users" <listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:00 AM
> From: "Hilary" <healing@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: <CT> Re: Win 3.11 (what??)
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 04:04:48 -0600

> Pls forgive a newbie query- but I have WIN 3.1- what is the diff between
> that and 3.11? And is there a place I could dnld 3.11 should it be
> advantageous to do so?

<Mauricio Zapata Ossa>
<zapataossa@xxxxxxxxxx Mi página Web: http://spanish-calmira.8m.com/ >

To unsubscribe, send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe calmira_tips" in the body. 
OR visit http://freelists.dhs.org

Other related posts:

  • » <CT> Re: Win 3.11 (what??)/old:What is Windows for Workgroups???