[os2fan2]

It depends on which memory is being talked about. DOS does not page XMS, so this is limited to RAM by himem.sys. On the other hand, Windows does page XMS, so ye have access to more memory than is installed on the box. It's this trick i got DOOM to work in less than required memory.

[aurgathor]

I installed it, then I spent an hour or two to figure out how it works, and how I can use it, and then I uninstalled it. That was it.

I was using PC-Mix at that time (anyone remember that nifty multitasking shell?) and while it didn't have a GUI, it simply worked much better for my use.

[LostInSpace2012]

I used Windows 3.1 back when I was like 10 years old. I thought it was pretty neat at the time. Now that I think about it, it really was an important milestone in computing.

Several ground breaking programs that come to mind are LView 3.1, Word 6.0, and early versions of Winzip. (It was much faster and easier than using PKunzip)

I would never use Windows 3.1 or DOS ever again. There's no point. The only way to get media on/off those computers is by using floppy disks. In today's world of 4Gb flash drives, trying to get by with floppy diskettes would be impossible. It would be torture.

If I had to pick the greatest Windows 3.1 program of all tme, it would definitely be Word 6.0. That thing practically was Windows 3.1

[JorgeA]

LostInSpace2012, on 20 August 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

If I had to pick the greatest Windows 3.1 program of all tme, it would definitely be Word 6.0. That thing practically was Windows 3.1

Yeah, Word 6.0 -- with its native fonts and WYSIWYG feature -- is what made the switch over from DOS worth it for me. Otherwise I'd have been just as happy to keep chugging along with WordStar in MS-DOS 3.25...

--JorgeA

[shae]

I chose "Never", but that depends on how you define "use". I did have it installed for some time, and did occasionally use it, but it was never used as an OS per se. I used it more like you use a software, running it when needed for specific things.

DOS was my main OS, which also continued as a dual boot option with Win95, and maybe even Win98 for a while.

This post has been edited by shae: 25 August 2012 - 08:39 AM

[dencorso]

dencorso, on 13 April 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

(Which compares well with the more realistic 52.14 weeks per year,40h per week of work and US$7.25 per hour, which gives US$15120.60) .
Now, with Brazilian 13 months and Sao Paulo's US$370.00 per month, we'd have US$4810.00 per year. Then the buts begin: but the Big Mac Index (by applying it, the US$4810.00 is reduced by 35% to account to the higher costs here, becoming US$3126.50), but the Gini Coefficient and but the unemployment rate (6.0% in 2011). And Brazil has about 2/3 of the US population.

Just to keep up to date, the situation here has remained about the same (or improved minimally, if one wants to be optmistic): What then were US$3126.50, now became US$3589.50... (about 15% real gain after two years, that's not bad you'll say!)... I'll check the new Gini Coefficient and the unemployment rate and add that info later. Also it's really worth it to give a look at the new, interactive, at The Economist's Big Mac Index page.

[JodyThornton]

I wrote one to five years for my vote. To be honest though, three of those years were using Windows 3.1 as a Win-OS/2 session. 16-bit apps ran great under OS/2.

(Edit: Apparently from reading the thread, I'm not alone. There are other Win-OS/2 users too.)

This post has been edited by JodyThornton: 08 April 2013 - 07:44 AM