Windows 3.1 @ 20

[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.

[ZortMcGort11]

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]

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

[osRe]

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.

Edited August 25, 2012 by shae

[dencorso]

(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, Big Mac Index page at The Economist's.

[Jody Thornton]

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.)

Edited April 8, 2013 by JodyThornton

[dencorso]

At US minimum wage of $7.25 /hr x 40hrs/week x 52 weeks/year = US$15,080.00 per year gross income, assuming no vacation. [...] If the Brazilian yearly income at minimum wage is really just "US$4810.00 per year", then the comparative situation is even worse that you were portraying it, especially after you factor in the Big Mac Index and the Gini Coefficient.

Just to keep this up to date (not that it has changed that much since then), the Sao Paulo State Minimum Wage (the highest in Brazil) is, since 01/01/2015, US$ 2.05 per hour (using 2.82, the jan 2015 the Big Mac index as the exchange rate). It also means US$ 4275.48 per year, so there has been a loss of real purchasing power to it of about 11%, as compared to 2012...  

[submix8c]

In addition yearly inflation rate does not equal purchasing power.

 

National News inviariably suggests how great everything is (if only min wage was raised) but don't take into account purchasing power.

 

Compare $.50/gal gas / $.25 loaf of bread in 1972 to $2.80 gas / $1.20 loaf of bread today.

 

Pretty sure if inflation rates were APR "compounded" (like banks do for savings accounts) people would be shocked.

 

Also pretty sure this has floated OT...

 

On-Topic - DOS/Win3x is great for really old games -if- you can get a slow enough CPU / low enough RAM. Been saveing a couple of old dinosaurs back for grand-kids. Just haven't got around to re-assembly. Win95/98 are ok too, except for some old games (like PacMan) run -way- too fast even on a P-133mhz (AFAICR).

[dencorso]

Also pretty sure this has floated OT...

 

You bet!

 

jaclaz posted elsewhere on MSFN about running Win 3.1 on DOSBox... while I'm not quite keen on using VMs, it sure seems a good option for games requiring very slow hardware (read 4.77MHz 8088 like). It's also the best option for running DOS executables and Win 16 protected mode executables on x64 NT OSes... So maybe we should open a thread dedicated to it, shouldn't we?

[CamTron]

Wow, I feel young!   My first experience with a computer was when I was about 4 or 5 years old, and we had Windows 95, so I pretty much skipped the whole Win16 era. I do seem to remember seeing a small number of machines at my elementary school that had the 3.x look, and they may have been Windows 3.x or Windows NT 3.x, but all we ever used there was Windows 98, 2000, and XP.

 

It does look like an interesting OS, but there doesn't seem to be much software that was made for it besides Word, Internet Explorer, and DOS games.

[jaclaz]

It does look like an interesting OS, but there doesn't seem to be much software that was made for it besides Word, Internet Explorer, and DOS games.

Sure , until Windows 95 came out everything manufactured by mankind,  including cars, bridges and buildings was designed by hand on paper, Adobe and Autodesk only exist because of Windows 95, a Lotus 123 was just an extremely small British car and your dad's accountant used an abacus to calculate the taxes.

 

Not that this did not actually happen in recent enough times, but you are some 10-15 years off in the dates.

 

To be fair a fairly good (but not exceptional) PC, something that would have been called an "Engineering Workstation" at the time, circa 1985 would have easily costed 8-12 monthly wages of the actual engineer, the PC and DOS was a (costly) device used at work, not something that was in every home.

 

jaclaz

[Dave-H]

Brings back memories this talk about Windows 3.1!

I got my first PC in 1993, well after many people here I'm sure, and I never had the pleasure of working on a pure DOS machine, but I can certainly remember when PCs were purely considered to be office work tools, and it was rare to find one in the home.

My first machine had no sound facilities (why would you need it on an office machine in those days?) and a 120MB hard drive!

This failed quite quickly, and under warranty it was replaced with a (gasp!) 150MB hard drive.

This was more than you could ever imagine filling up in your whole lifetime in those days!

The machine had Lotus office programs on it, Lotus Organiser address book, Lotus 123 for spreadsheets, and Lotus AmiPro for word processing.

It didn't have much else!

[JorgeA]

I remember thinking "Wow!" the first time I slid a CD into the tray of my WFWG 3.11 machine, and hearing music come out of the speakers. I didn't even have to get up from my chair anymore to play music as I worked.

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

 

Also pretty sure this has floated OT...

 

You bet!

 

jaclaz posted elsewhere on MSFN about running Win 3.1 on DOSBox... while I'm not quite keen on using VMs, it sure seems a good option for games requiring very slow hardware (read 4.77MHz 8088 like). It's also the best option for running DOS executables and Win 16 protected mode executables on x64 NT OSes... So maybe we should open a thread dedicated to it, shouldn't we?

 

 

If we may be permitted to float further back than 3.11, my father once had a DOS machine that had a switch to toggle the CPU between 4.77 and 8 MHz, precisely for the purpose of playing games that didn't work well on the faster setting.

 

--JorgeA