Why I like Windows 3.1

edited September 2017 in Software
As you may know, having a fully working system that is period appropriate for Windows 3.1 (like my 486 machine that died, and the Acer Acros I have now) is something that is very important for me.

But why?

I'm not exactly sure, to be frank.

Windows 3.x is the last version before Windows 95, which changed a lot of things about the way Windows looks, and works.

Windows 3.x is the last version to run on a real version of Dos, while Windows 95 and 98 do have a version of DOS technically underneath them, it's a bastardised version, and not what I would call "true DOS".

Windows 9x and above, may well be easier to use, but as a hobbyist, I'm not looking for ease of use, I am looking for experiencing things, I haven't for a while, or haven't at all.

Give n that I wasn't born until 1995, Windows 9x is the first Windows version I have used, and I have never actually used for every-day-use, Windows 3.x or older.

The first Windows I used was definitely 9x, though I don't now if 95 or 98, but I remember a grey UI, Winamp, and the boot logo with the clouds and the old Windows logo, and it was running on a beige tower pc with a CRT, this was back in the townhouse I lived in as a small child.

I think the fact that I never actually got to use Windows 3.1 and that it's the last Windows version to be truly tied to DOS is what makes me like it soo much.

I also like the way it looks, and the fact that it was the first version of Windows capable of Multimedia starting with Windows 3.0 with Multimedia Extensions.

It represents a leap in Windows, and is a clear and interesting stepping stone between Windows 1.x and 2.x and Windows 9.x

Comments

  • Back when I used Windows 3.1 I remember spending a lot of time trying to make it look and/or work like Windows 95. I pretty much only used 3.1 because I was stuck with it. My system didn't have enough RAM and it would be a couple of years before I could afford to upgrade it and I also didn't know about places to download 95, so I didn't even have a copy of it.

    Occasionally I'll have pangs of nostalgia for 3.1, but any time I try to use it again I'm just reminded of how much it sucked. I've often been curious about using it in its heyday since I was really too young to know or care when it was new. I mostly just remember exiting windows so I could go back to DOS and run the game I wanted to play.
  • I remember my family having a system with a 1.5GHZ Pentium 4 from the early 2000's all the way up until 2009 or so.

    In the latter years, it was slow as fuck.

    It didn't help that I'd download a bunch of shit from the internet that launched upon boot up taking up more and more ram, back when I was completely clueless about computer stuff.

    It looked like this, but with only one CD-ROM drive at the top, and at some point I got so mad at it, as I physically assaulted it with my foot and busted up the some of the space holders covering the empty drive bays. (they were still there, but just loose and flimsy):

    44888477_614.jpg

    Then in 2009 my dad finally got a new computer, with an Intel Core 2 Quad, it had Windows XP on it, my dad didn't want Vista, and Windows 7 wasn't out yet.
  • edited September 2017
    My Gateway 2000 386-25 (1989) came with Win3.0 and Dos4.0.
    Upgraded to Win3.1 and Dos5.0 when they came out.
    The thing I remember was that many games of the time were Dos based and W3x was used as a shell.
    As gaming was requiring more resources, Dos provided the better environment for good performance.
    Games running in W3x were slow and crashed a lot. It was not a good gaming environment.

    Application programs designed specifically for W3x like Office 4.x performed well.
    File Manager in W3x was also a good app that provided easy file viewing.
    Thus, throughout the DOS/W3x era, I generally used Dos.
    I did not use W3x for Multimedia or games, but Office apps were ok.

    Even uprading to a Acer Acros P5-100 (Dos6.22/W3x) in 1995 did little to improve W3x performance.
    Both of these machines were used basically for Dos.

    Edit:
    Sorry, it was a Pentium-100.
  • Windows 3.1 was the first version of Windows that was actually worth it. 1 and 2 were just ugly graphical shells for DOS with very simple/limited programs. When 3 hit the scene, Windows started shifting to look like we know it today. Programmers sat up and realized Windows would be a good platform to make applications for.

    Windows 9x does run true DOS. Depending on the Windows version, MS-DOS 7.0 or 7.1 runs the bootloader and Windows starts. DOS then moves to the background for compatibility with 16-bit drivers and programs. The graphical shell can be exited for access to plain DOS. Aside from a few changes and upgrades, the DOS framework included in the 9x-line is essentially the same as 6.22.

    If I had to use any version of Windows from before 9x, I'd suggest MS-DOS 7.1, WFW3.11 and Calmira LFN.
  • altracker9 wrote:
    Even uprading to a Acer Acros P5-100 (Dos6.22/W3x) in 1995 did little to improve W3x performance.
    Both of these machines were used basically for Dos.

    Really, my Acer Acros with a 75mhz pentium, 25mhz lower than that, is pretty damn snappy for me.
  • Of course its snappy compared to a 12MHz 286.
  • I would've thought that any Pentium would be high-end in context of Windows 3.1.
  • Twiggy wrote:
    I would've thought that any Pentium would be high-end in context of Windows 3.1.
    It would be...
    Are you sure that the P5-100 was a 100MHz Pentium and not a 286-12 machine?
    I Think it is but On-Line info about it is non-existent....
    Well happy trails!
Sign In or Register to comment.