Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

Windows 3.1 @ 20

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

Poll: Windows 3.1 Poll (41 member(s) have cast votes)

How long have you used the operating system for?

  1. Never (11 votes [26.83%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.83%

  2. Less than 1 year (9 votes [21.95%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.95%

  3. 1 to 5 years (12 votes [29.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 29.27%

  4. More than 5 years (9 votes [21.95%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.95%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1
ppgrainbow

ppgrainbow

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 448 posts
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Windows 3.1, the successor to the widely popular Windows 3.0 operating system will mark its 20th anniversary this Friday. The series began with Windows 3.1, which was first sold and further editions of the OS between early April 1992 to February 1994 (Windows for Workgroups 3.1x, Windows for Pen Computing, Windows 3.2) were released until the series was superseded by Windows 95.

Windows 3.1 dropped support for Real Mode (8086/8088 support) and required a 6 MHz 80286 PC with only 1 MB of memory to run. Such a effect of this was to increase the stability over the crash-prone Windows 3.0. Windows 3.1 was the first version of the OS to be distributed on CD-ROM which typically came with MS-DOS 6.22 on one CD in addition to 720 KB, 1.2 MB (5.25") and 1.44 MB floppy distributions. Windows 3.1 required at least 10 MB to 15 MB of free disk space. While Windows 3.1 can theoretically address up to 64 MB of memory in Standard Mode, the OS under 386 Enhanced Mode can address up to 4 GB of RAM even if under MS-DOS 6.x, it can only address up to 64 MB of system RAM and a swap file of up to 256 MB. Furthermore, no single 16-bit application can ever use more than 16 MB of memory.

Windows 3,1 was the first OS to include support for the TrueType font system even though similar functionality was available for Windows 3.0 through the Adobe Type Manager (ATM) font system from Adobe. Windows 3.1 included support for Video for Windows as well as Win32s support for limited compatibility with the then-new 32-bit Windows API used by Windows NT 3.x and Windows 95. Microsoft released 16-bit versions of Internet Explorer from version 2.0 up to the first release of Internet Explorer 5 in early 1999 before support was dropped.

Microsoft dropped support for all 16-bit versions of Windows, including Windows 3.1 on the 31st of December 2001. The OS found a niche market as an embedded operating system after becoming obsolete in the PC world. Microsoft announced that on the 9th of July 2008, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 for the embedded devices channel would no longer be made available for OEM distribution as of the 1st of November 2008.

As we look back on the 20th anniversary of Windows 3.1, please share your thoughts of what it was like to use the OS, I would really appreciate it. :D

Edited by ppgrainbow, 03 April 2012 - 07:33 PM.

AVA Direct FX AM3+ specs: Zalman ZM Z9-U3 Black Mid-Tower case / ASUS M5A97 R2.0 / AMD FX-4300 3.8 GHz quad-core processor / Fractal Design Integra R2 500W PSU/ Hyper 212 EVO CPU cooler / Western Digital BLACK SERIES 1 TB (WD1003FZEX) SATA III 7200 RPM / Lite-On iHas124 Black 24x DVD-RW / Sabrent CRW-UINB internal memory card w/USB 2.0 port (to be replaced soon) / 8 GB Crucual (2 x 4GB) Ballistix Sport PC3-12800 DDR3 RAM / EVGA GeForce 8400 GS 520 MHz 1 GB GDDR3 / Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP2 x64



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,067 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

As we look back on the 20th anniversary of Windows 3.1, please share your thoughts of what it was like to use the OS, I would really appreciate it. :D

JFYI:
http://www.msfn.org/...s-os-nostalgia/
http://www.msfn.org/...n98/page__st__3

jaclaz

#3
ppgrainbow

ppgrainbow

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 448 posts
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x64
  • Country: Country Flag


As we look back on the 20th anniversary of Windows 3.1, please share your thoughts of what it was like to use the OS, I would really appreciate it. :D

JFYI:
http://www.msfn.org/...s-os-nostalgia/
http://www.msfn.org/...n98/page__st__3

jaclaz


Thanks so much! I appreciate it. I'm currently running Windows for Workgroups 3.11 under VMware right now. :)

AVA Direct FX AM3+ specs: Zalman ZM Z9-U3 Black Mid-Tower case / ASUS M5A97 R2.0 / AMD FX-4300 3.8 GHz quad-core processor / Fractal Design Integra R2 500W PSU/ Hyper 212 EVO CPU cooler / Western Digital BLACK SERIES 1 TB (WD1003FZEX) SATA III 7200 RPM / Lite-On iHas124 Black 24x DVD-RW / Sabrent CRW-UINB internal memory card w/USB 2.0 port (to be replaced soon) / 8 GB Crucual (2 x 4GB) Ballistix Sport PC3-12800 DDR3 RAM / EVGA GeForce 8400 GS 520 MHz 1 GB GDDR3 / Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP2 x64


#4
CoffeeFiend

CoffeeFiend

    Coffee Aficionado

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,399 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

World's most fave operating system of all time

Citation needed. I'd hardly call it that. Not even near.

please share your thoughts of what it was like to use the OS

It was mostly useless. Besides MS Office 4.x there was so very little non-DOS apps. For the most part it felt like a unnecessary launcher of MS-DOS apps: WordPerfect 5.x for DOS, Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS, all Borland "Turbo" compilers were for DOS (same for pretty much all other compilers), AutoCAD was DOS only, dBase for DOS (ditto for Clipper, Paradox, Clarion, etc), most file (de)compressors like LHA/ARJ/PKZIP and so on were DOS cmd line tools, almost all text editors were for DOS (like QEdit, several ANSI editors or even edit.com), if you wanted to copy/delete files or whatever most people did it from the cmd line or otherwise using more DOS tools like XTree or Norton Commander, almost all networking happened via DOS apps (novell netware's software stack along with NE2000 cards, laplink cables, DOS-based apps that would use [X/Y/Z]Modem to transfer files using a modem, etc), most picture viewers were for DOS (e.g. compupic), etc. Almost all games were DOS games too. Almost all the work and all the fun happened with MS-DOS.

By the time it started getting anything interesting Win95 was already out (and far better all-around -- Win3.x was *so* clunky). I certainly don't miss it one bit! I'd like to call it "World's most useless Microsoft operating system of all time" if anything (if win3.x can even be called an OS, with its MS-DOS requirement)
Coffee: \ˈkȯ-fē, ˈkä-\. noun. Heaven in a cup. Life's only treasure. The meaning of life. Kaffee ist wunderbar. C8H10N4O2 FTW.

#5
ppgrainbow

ppgrainbow

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 448 posts
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x64
  • Country: Country Flag

It was mostly useless. Besides MS Office 4.x there was so very little non-DOS apps. For the most part it felt like a unnecessary launcher of MS-DOS apps: WordPerfect 5.x for DOS, Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS, all Borland "Turbo" compilers were for DOS (same for pretty much all other compilers), AutoCAD was DOS only, dBase for DOS (ditto for Clipper, Paradox, Clarion, etc), most file (de)compressors like LHA/ARJ/PKZIP and so on were DOS cmd line tools, almost all text editors were for DOS (like QEdit, several ANSI editors or even edit.com), if you wanted to copy/delete files or whatever most people did it from the cmd line or otherwise using more DOS tools like XTree or Norton Commander, almost all networking happened via DOS apps (novell netware's software stack along with NE2000 cards, laplink cables, DOS-based apps that would use [X/Y/Z]Modem to transfer files using a modem, etc), most picture viewers were for DOS (e.g. compupic), etc. Almost all games were DOS games too. Almost all the work and all the fun happened with MS-DOS.

By the time it started getting anything interesting Win95 was already out (and far better all-around -- Win3.x was *so* clunky). I certainly don't miss it one bit! I'd like to call it "World's most useless Microsoft operating system of all time" if anything (if win3.x can even be called an OS, with its MS-DOS requirement)


Well...I'm pretty sure that not everyone was happy with Windows 3.1 being so clunky, even you. :(

Windows 3.x is just a graphical environment on top of a DOS-based operating system.

AVA Direct FX AM3+ specs: Zalman ZM Z9-U3 Black Mid-Tower case / ASUS M5A97 R2.0 / AMD FX-4300 3.8 GHz quad-core processor / Fractal Design Integra R2 500W PSU/ Hyper 212 EVO CPU cooler / Western Digital BLACK SERIES 1 TB (WD1003FZEX) SATA III 7200 RPM / Lite-On iHas124 Black 24x DVD-RW / Sabrent CRW-UINB internal memory card w/USB 2.0 port (to be replaced soon) / 8 GB Crucual (2 x 4GB) Ballistix Sport PC3-12800 DDR3 RAM / EVGA GeForce 8400 GS 520 MHz 1 GB GDDR3 / Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP2 x64


#6
TmEE

TmEE

    Mega Drive Modding Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 360 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
I've used it fair bit but it is quite useless, there wasn't you could do on it. Word processing and occasional PBrush and that was pretty much it.
Posted Image Mida sa loed ? Nagunii aru ei saa ;)

#7
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,067 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I've used it fair bit but it is quite useless, there wasn't you could do on it. Word processing and occasional PBrush and that was pretty much it.

Because you can do MUCH more with any more recent OS (excluding browsing the Internet and sending e-mails - both things that mostly weren't there in the times of Windows 3.x).
Comeon, you *need* anyway some kind of "Office" (a word processor and a spreadsheet at least), a decent image manipulating utility (and no, paint doesnt count), some specific app for your whatever profession,

@Coffeefiend
At the time the *best* Windows 3.11 spreadsheet IMHO was the mis-known Borland Quattro Pro for Windows (among other things, a much simpler way to "evolve" from Lotus 1-2-3 DOS than Excel):
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Quattro_Pro
and the actual office 4.0 arrived almost two years later than Windows 3.1:
http://en.wikipedia....icrosoft_Office
an "updated user" had Word 1.1 and Excel 3.0 (and only a bit later Word 2.0 and Excel 4.0), I guess noone has ever run Office 4.0 (aka Word 6.0 and Excel 4.0) on Windows 3.1, as everyone (talking of businesses) would have updated to Windows 3.11 for workgroups in the menatime.
There was also Paradox for Windows allright (and it actually kicked *ss at Access 1.0 and 2.0)
http://en.wikipedia....dox_for_Windows

Yes :), Autocad was at the time EXCLUSIVELY DOS (the R13 version arrived late and was actually a joke, probably also because hardware was so "UNpowerful", first usable Windows version being R14, MUCH later):
http://autodesk.blog...istory 2011.jpg

jaclaz

#8
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,035 posts
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

As we look back on the 20th anniversary of Windows 3.1, please share your thoughts of what it was like to use the OS, I would really appreciate it. :D

ppgrainbow,

I was fascinated and delighted when the first IBM PC came out and a friend let me play with it. I knew that computers were the way to go when I tried a "learn typewriting" program and my typing improved more in four weeks than it had in two whole semesters in high school.

My own home PC had to wait till I had the funds to get my own computer (a PC compatible). Once I did, after just six months of regular use I remember one time having to type a letter on my electric typewriter, and feeling like I was back in the Stone Age!

So I was an enthusiastic PC-DOS/MS-DOS user back from the days of the 1.x versions. For me the UX was an interesting combination of simplicity and tech arcana with all those cryptic DOS commands. I remained happily in that environment for a dozen years, having moved to an Amstrad PC6400 when the needs of my business called for e-mail capability later in the '80s.

I stayed on the Amstrad, using my beloved WordStar (anybody else remember WordStar?) until the documents I worked on started to get too big to fit on even a 1.44MB floppy. It was time to buy a computer with a hard drive, and thus was born my Windows for Workgroups 3.11 PC.

TBH, I never really warmed up to WFWG. The Program Manager concept never made any sense to me; and when I clicked on the down arrow in a program it seemed to just disappear, only to be found (sometimes) completely by chance as a mysterious image under everything else on the screen. More often than not, when I wanted to go back into Word or whatever, I would just click on its icon in PM, unaware that the program was still actually open. And there was a ton of new technology and esoteric jargon that I never did learn (Winsock, Expanded/Extended Memory, Real Mode, etc. etc.). I had made the switch from computing explorer to practical user, and I had zero interest in any of this new techspeak except insofar as it impacted on my work. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" was my approach.

Even though I wasn't delighted with the OS, I stayed on it till 2002, when my customers' increasing needs meant that I had to adopt more modern software than Word 6.0 and CompuServe Information Manager (which was very limited in the kinds and size of e-mail and attachments that it could take). It was then that I reluctantly changed over to my Windows 98 machine (yes, in 2002) which I'd bought four years earlier to future-proof my business.

And, this time, the change in the UI was a real and great improvement! Thanks to the taskbar, I no longer had to minimize other stuff to go hunting for other open applications. Plus the newly introduced Start Menu was organized in a logical, easy-to-follow manner with the cascading panels. To me, this is the high point of the Windows UI, which Microsoft has preserved and kept building on till now, when it threatens to undo all that usability with the phase-in of the Metro interface.

I still have my WFWG3.11 machine, and in fact it was pressed it back into action three years ago (on dial-up) when my Win98 PC got sick and I had to wait three weeks over the holidays for the phone company to send a router and open my account. I still go back into it once in a while to look up an old e-mail or Word file, or simply for nostalgia reasons, but I'm glad that a better interface was developed.

--JorgeA

#9
CoffeeFiend

CoffeeFiend

    Coffee Aficionado

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,399 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

At the time the *best* Windows 3.11 spreadsheet IMHO was the mis-known Borland Quattro Pro for Windows (among other things, a much simpler way to "evolve" from Lotus 1-2-3 DOS than Excel)

I've heard of it, but I've literally never actually seen anyone who used it. Not a single person. Not one. None. Virtually 100% of the people I've seen upgraded directly to Excel 4.x.

the actual office 4.0 arrived almost two years later than Windows 3.1

I'm aware of that but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make (perhaps you aren't).

There was also Paradox for Windows allright (and it actually kicked *ss at Access 1.0 and 2.0)

It's totally possible that it was nice but it wasn't all that popular (never seen anyone use it either).

the R13 version arrived late and was actually a joke, probably also because hardware was so "UNpowerful", first usable Windows version being R14, MUCH later

I've used R12 Win on Win95 and it was a joke indeed (R12 DOS definitely rocked for its time). Plotting under Windows seemed so strange as well. By the time it turned into a decent Windows app I had mostly stopped using it. As for UNpowerful hardware, yeah, tell me about it. I've seen plenty of people run R12 on 386's (and even seen some unfortunate people with the wrong stepping of the 386 who couldn't run it) with 4 or 8MB of RAM. Every time a n00b entered a fill value that was too high it would lock the machine for a half hour or more.

Either ways, there were very, very little common non-DOS programs back then. A lot of people around that time used only DOS apps (be it business apps or games).That's what made Win3.x pretty much useless. Aside from using MS Office, I'd say 90% of the use of Win 3.x I've seen was Solitaire, Minesweeper and MS Paint.
Coffee: \ˈkȯ-fē, ˈkä-\. noun. Heaven in a cup. Life's only treasure. The meaning of life. Kaffee ist wunderbar. C8H10N4O2 FTW.

#10
CharlotteTheHarlot

CharlotteTheHarlot

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,054 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Even though we nowadays call it Win3.yuk, it was the cat's meow for a few years. Maybe two.

I had what seemed at the time a very mature program called CorelDraw versions 3 through 5. It was seriously amazing what they managed to get that one to do on the Win3x platform.

The main Office style app that was everywhere was Microsoft Works which was really tailor made for the limited resources of the time : i486, 4 or 8 MB RAM, Hard Drives still measured in MegaBytes.

Games that were always DOS based were quickly being re-written for the GUI, with stuff like checkers, chess, tic-tac-toe, asteroids, missile command. Without Direct-X this must have been one heck of a chore, I don't know how they managed at all during this time period!

But one good thing was that the finally acceptable, standardized GUI desktop was working correctly and the Icons and PIF files let us centrally manage our collections of hard core DOS games and other programs. This was a paradigm shift from the previous decade (seems like an eternity) of incredibly creative uber BAT files and CONFIG.SYS menu selectors (or DosShell or GEM or whatever Menu launchers). This was the strong point IMHO, point and click with predictable results.

The pre-PnP environment gets a bad rap. If the cards all behaved (they had enough DIP switch possibilities) one could successfully configure the IRQ's and I/O and everytime the computer was booted the system was in an identical state. This consistent static state was sorely missed in the early PnP days when the neither the card manufacturers, the system BIOS programmers, nor Microsoft (Windows device manager) were on the same page.

Having said that, the jump to Win95 still could not come soon enough.

... Let him who hath understanding reckon the Number Of The Beast ...


#11
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,067 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag


the actual office 4.0 arrived almost two years later than Windows 3.1

I'm aware of that but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make (perhaps you aren't).

Not really "a point", only remembering how there was no "real" "Office suite" at the time, most people bought Excel separately as a stand-alone version, and it was a steep price :ph34r: .

Quattro Pro had the great advantage that used Lotus 1-2-3 compatible syntax for functions, no real advantage for a "newbie", but for the few people that were familiar with Lotus represented a "fifth gear"...

The Paradox database engine was as well - at the time - well ahead of Access, believe me, I have used both, waaay ahead.

At the time (we are talking of 1993/1994) the "Standard" was 4 Mb of RAM, to have 8 was already a "costly" option, the average processor was likely to be a 486 sx 25 or 33, I remember when I got the first machine with a 486 Dx 100 and 32 Mb, people passed by my office just to see how fast it was recalculating a spreadsheet.

And yes, noone had calculation on, and F9 was pressed only when really needed. :w00t:

I doubt the young peeps can understand the awe that provoked the first project plannings made with Project 3.0 for Windows! :angel

why, in MY day ....
http://reboot.pro/1908/
.... and we liked it!

OT, but not much ;), something I titled "Twenty years of evolution in design and breakthrough changes in paradigms"
http://reboot.pro/16395/


jaclaz

#12
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,035 posts
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag
The thread has driven me deep into my archives. This book came with my WFWG3.11 machine:

Attached Files

  • Attached File  WFWG.jpg   755.17KB   5 downloads


#13
Ponch

Ponch

    MSFN Junkie

  • Patrons
  • 3,244 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

World's most fave operating system of all time

Citation needed. I'd hardly call it that. Not even near.

Was it even an OS at all? More like a GUI. :angel

#14
CoffeeFiend

CoffeeFiend

    Coffee Aficionado

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,399 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Was it even an OS at all? More like a GUI. :angel

That's pretty much what I said too:

if win3.x can even be called an OS, with its MS-DOS requirement

;)
Coffee: \ˈkȯ-fē, ˈkä-\. noun. Heaven in a cup. Life's only treasure. The meaning of life. Kaffee ist wunderbar. C8H10N4O2 FTW.

#15
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,035 posts
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag


World's most fave operating system of all time

Citation needed. I'd hardly call it that. Not even near.

Was it even an OS at all? More like a GUI. :angel

Rightly or wrongly, I always viewed it as a needless accretion over MS-DOS.

--JorgeA

#16
ppgrainbow

ppgrainbow

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 448 posts
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x64
  • Country: Country Flag


World's most fave operating system of all time

Citation needed. I'd hardly call it that. Not even near.

Was it even an OS at all? More like a GUI. :angel


It was a GUI operating on top of of MS-DOS or a DOS compatible OS.

AVA Direct FX AM3+ specs: Zalman ZM Z9-U3 Black Mid-Tower case / ASUS M5A97 R2.0 / AMD FX-4300 3.8 GHz quad-core processor / Fractal Design Integra R2 500W PSU/ Hyper 212 EVO CPU cooler / Western Digital BLACK SERIES 1 TB (WD1003FZEX) SATA III 7200 RPM / Lite-On iHas124 Black 24x DVD-RW / Sabrent CRW-UINB internal memory card w/USB 2.0 port (to be replaced soon) / 8 GB Crucual (2 x 4GB) Ballistix Sport PC3-12800 DDR3 RAM / EVGA GeForce 8400 GS 520 MHz 1 GB GDDR3 / Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP2 x64


#17
Joseph_sw

Joseph_sw

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 217 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
i always consider win 3.x as "Shell" and not an "OS"

but.. , win9x also sits on top of MS-DOS 7.x

i remember mucking with 9x settings (by accidents) that it would return to DOS instead of powering-down the computer, when you choose to shutdown.
win9x will gives messages something like: "You may shutdown the computer", but with C:\> prompt ready.

and, with BootGUI=0 in msdos.sys,
i loves type "win" to (re-)run the win9x,
just like i did on windows 3.x before.

#18
M()zart

M()zart

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 275 posts
I didn't have a PC that time, but I've seen Windows 3.11 on my friend's computer. He had a computer with 486 processor, 8 Mb RAM, and 200 Mb HDD with DOS. Our favorite game at that time was Sid Meier's Civilization. When we got Civilization II, we were disappointed - it required Windows! But already well-known Windows 95 (it was about 1995-1996 year) was too large for 200 Mb HDD. But some day my friend discovered Windows 3.11 - less than 12 MB HDD space, and Civilization II was satisfied with Windows 3.11! So, we used this 'OS' only to play Civilization II - Other games of that time were mostly DOS or at least had DOS versions, and Windows analogues were too slow for this PC, and we didn't have any other Windows 3.11 apps. Then in 1997 I bought my own PC - already with Windows 95, and my friend also upgraded his one...

#19
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,035 posts
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Apropos of this topic, PCWorld has this slideshow.

I never knew there was a version of Task Manager in WFWG3.11.

--JorgeA

#20
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Ah the memories.
My first PC in 1993 had Windows 3.1 on it, and it was the wonder of the age at the time.
It had a 120 MB hard drive "more than you'll ever need!"
I still have the machine now, and I don't think I could ever bear to part with it.
It was used by a friend of mine for some years, running Windows 98, but when he updated (to a Windows 7 laptop!) the machine came back home.
I was really sorry that I'd actually junked my 3.1 installation disks, as I would have put it back on there.
As it is it's dual booting with Windows 95 OSR2 and Windows NT 3.5.
The latter still gives me the Windows 3.1 experience as it's the same GUI!
:)

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.2GHz Xeons with 4GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#21
5eraph

5eraph

    Update Packrat

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 1,144 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

LOL. My first IBM compatible PC came with Tandy Deskmate, a Windows 1.0 clone. Never used it.

Can say the same about my next PC, an IBM PS/1 which came with Windows 3.0. I wiped the hard drive after the first month because it was nothing but a waste of space. I was 15.

#22
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,035 posts
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

My first IBM compatible PC came with Tandy Deskmate, a Windows 1.0 clone. Never used it.

I still have an Amstrad PC6400 that came with separate floppies for MS-DOS and GEM, the CP/M GUI. I was a DOS guy and never felt the urge to complicate my life with a GUI.

--JorgeA

#23
CoffeeFiend

CoffeeFiend

    Coffee Aficionado

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,399 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

It had a 120 MB hard drive "more than you'll ever need!"

Before that, people were saying the same thing about 20MB hard drives, and that was a luxury not many could afford either. Floppies also seemed quite large. I mean, you could fit several full games on one, and I'm not talking about 1.44MB floppies either! People have always said that. I almost wonder if people were saying that when cavemen were making drawings on cave's walls... And these days we have no problems filling drives of a few terabytes. These days online hosts have petabytes of data. Megaupload for example had between 25 and 28 petabytes of data -- that's over 25 000 000 GB. I'm not sure how much space Amazon's S3 has, but they have price breaks for customers that use more than 50TB... I don't see this trend stopping anytime soon, nor will people stop saying "this is more than we'll ever need".

GEM, the CP/M GUI

All these years I thought GEM was an Atari ST-only thing... Not that I've ever used CP/M (I mostly used 8 bit machines before MS-DOS).
Coffee: \ˈkȯ-fē, ˈkä-\. noun. Heaven in a cup. Life's only treasure. The meaning of life. Kaffee ist wunderbar. C8H10N4O2 FTW.

#24
5eraph

5eraph

    Update Packrat

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 1,144 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

All these years I thought GEM was an Atari ST-only thing... Not that I've ever used CP/M (I mostly used 8 bit machines before MS-DOS).

Atari 400 was my first. With a tape drive. :)

#25
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,790 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Who remembers this?

Attached Files






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN