Why I like Windows 3.1
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
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
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.
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):
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.
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 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.
Really, my Acer Acros with a 75mhz pentium, 25mhz lower than that, is pretty damn snappy for me.
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!