geekhack

geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: didjamatic on Thu, 28 October 2010, 21:55:10

Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: didjamatic on Thu, 28 October 2010, 21:55:10: Does anyone on here really honestly use Win 3.1?

If you seriously use Win 3.1 that is hardcore.

If you're into vintage OS's, then check out Windows 95b. I stayed with 95b until I think 98SE SP2 which I used only briefly before going to Win2kPro. 95b had better driver support than 95 and it had native USB and FAT32 file system support, while consuming very few resources. So it was really really fast.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: KillerBee on Thu, 28 October 2010, 22:43:57: I believe if I could find a way to do It I would still rock either 3.1 or 95.

My first computer which was an IBM L40SX Laptop had 3.1 so I am very fond of it.

(http://geekhack.org/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=458)
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: didjamatic on Thu, 28 October 2010, 23:01:13: You could use vmware to load up a virtual machine pretty easily. The default virtual hardware is an intel 440bx chipset which I ran win 95b on, oddly enough. (Asus p2b for me) That was an extremely stable chipset and everything has drivers for it which is why it was selected by VMWare.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: Sam on Thu, 28 October 2010, 23:14:16: I still use MS-DOS on occasion. Mainly due to certain legacy products that need support and where the software tools were written in MS-DOS and only run on a machine booted up as such.

Back in the days when Windows was taking off, I was a very late hold-out, and continued to use only MS-DOS, other than just playing around with Windows 3.1 on occasion. When Windows 95 first came out, I finally made the switch, with my primary machine being Windows and my secondary machine being MS-DOS.

These days, it's Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit, with Windows XP Mode for backwards compatibility for certain applications. In addition to a Linux machine and some Macs for doing iPhone/iPad development.

I don't know why anyone would still want to use Windows 3.1 as their primary OS. It would be so limiting, being any new applications wouldn't likely support it. I could really only see it being used if necessary for some backwards compatibility with old applications that there was no new version for, or if the cost to upgrade to a new version was prohibitive. Of course if you wanted a working vintage computer of that era, then it would make sense to utilize Windows 3.1 on it. But for a modern PC, I just don't see it.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: Daniel Beaver on Thu, 28 October 2010, 23:28:15: I use it to run legacy software, but that's it.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: Shawn Stanford on Fri, 29 October 2010, 06:24:57: (http://www.mevis-research.de/~meyer/MISC/dilbert/ComputerHolyWars01.gif)

I miss OS/2 so much...
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: zefrer on Fri, 29 October 2010, 06:33:43: OS/2 Warp was amazing if you ask me. Best desktop OS of its time by far.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: Shawn Stanford on Fri, 29 October 2010, 06:56:02: It was amazing: far better than the Win OS of the day. I'm tempted to snag a copy off eBay, but I know I don't have the time to mess with it.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: bigpook on Fri, 29 October 2010, 09:35:33: back in the day we had voice mail systems running on OS/2. While I don't/didn't know much about OS/2 it didn't matter. All I ever had to deal with was the voice mail application running on top of it. OS/2 was an incredibly stable operating system. It never crashed and would run until there was a power/hardware failure.
Sadly, it is no longer in use. Today it is either linux or windows and truth be known, I have less issues with the linux based voicemails.
Windows works well but my customers tell me they have to bump their boxes once a month or so. I initially thought that was a problem but they seemed to be ok with it. The linux boxes run flawlessly.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: zefrer on Fri, 29 October 2010, 10:14:42: Quote
Windows works well but my customers tell me they have to bump their boxes once a month or so. I initially thought that was a problem but they seemed to be ok with it.

With windows that is expected. Still a problem.

And yeah probably some old ATMs use them. Most ATMs run windows for some reason.. See recent blackhat conference on why that is not such a good idea maybe.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: itlnstln on Fri, 29 October 2010, 10:15:50: There's still a lot of POS systems running 3.1. Fast hardware, simple software requirements, and narrow scope of use doesn't require a crazy-advanced operating system.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: microsoft windows on Fri, 29 October 2010, 17:28:18: I use Windows 3.1 on a regular basis on a Gateway2000 system from 1996. I use it for a variety of purposes, including posting on this forum.

If you guys look at my screen shots, you all'll notice that many of them were taken in Windows 3.1.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: mr_a500 on Fri, 29 October 2010, 17:38:24: Quote from: itlnstln;240183
There's still a lot of POS systems running 3.1.

Does your "POS" stand for Point Of Sale... or Piece Of ****?
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: microsoft windows on Fri, 29 October 2010, 17:45:12: My Gateway2000 certainly isn't a piece of ****. That thing's very well-built. While it's gotten old, and isn't fast by today's standards, it's still a great quality machine.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: mr_a500 on Fri, 29 October 2010, 17:55:31: Quote from: microsoft windows;240314
My Gateway2000 certainly isn't a piece of ****.

I didn't say it was. It's just whenever I see "POS", I automatically think it stands for "piece of ****".

I can appreciate well built PCs. (...but I still don't really like them, with their ancient BIOS limitations and need for OS-specific drivers)
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: chimera15 on Fri, 29 October 2010, 19:43:54: I didn't use 3.1 when it was out and popular. It seemed always pretty pointless to me since it didn't really offer much than just dos by itself did. It was faster just to use dos in most cases. I suppose maybe if you needed a calculator or something.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: Ekaros on Fri, 29 October 2010, 19:46:37: So why not CP/M? If older is better?
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: ricercar on Fri, 29 October 2010, 22:31:14: OS/2 Warp totally pwned Win3, NT, and Win 95. Microsoft should not have dropped IBM; IBM knew more about writing and maintaining an OS than Microsoft ever will.

(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=13235&stc=1&d=1288409464)
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: ch_123 on Sat, 30 October 2010, 04:25:01: If I was using computers back then, I'd want me an SGI IRIX workstation. Now that a great OS for its time...
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: mr_a500 on Sat, 30 October 2010, 06:03:13: Quote from: ch_123;240417
If I was using computers back then, I'd want me an SGI IRIX workstation. Now that a great OS for its time...

I've got me an SGI IRIX workstation - and it doesn't quite live up to the hype. (and neither does NeXT, which I also have)
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: iMav on Sat, 30 October 2010, 06:44:57: I was quite fond of OS/2 for a time. That was one slick OS.

The great OS tragedy, of course, is the fall of the Amiga OS. It has risen from the ashes and does still exist...but it will never be what it once was.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: microsoft windows on Sat, 30 October 2010, 08:46:00: Windows 3.1 still isn't all that bad for an operating system. There's a lot you can still get done on it.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sat, 30 October 2010, 08:53:52: Can you play Minesweeper on it?
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: microsoft windows on Sat, 30 October 2010, 08:54:33: Yes I can.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: keyboardlover on Sat, 30 October 2010, 08:56:03: Then I'm sold!
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: microsoft windows on Sat, 30 October 2010, 12:39:31: You mean you'd pay money for it?
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: ch_123 on Sat, 30 October 2010, 14:05:38: Quote from: mr_a500;240425
I've got me an SGI IRIX workstation - and it doesn't quite live up to the hype. (and neither does NeXT, which I also have)

I have an Indy myself. Main problem with it is that it doesn't have enough RAM to run the version of IRIX on it. It has some quite nice features (both in the desktop and the OS itself) that made it far nicer than the other Unix variants of the day.

Besides, all the Mac OS and Windows versions of the day were absolute junk.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: mr_a500 on Sat, 30 October 2010, 15:15:26: Quote from: ch_123;240547
I have an Indy myself. Main problem with it is that it doesn't have enough RAM to run the version of IRIX on it. It has some quite nice features (both in the desktop and the OS itself) that made it far nicer than the other Unix variants of the day.

Besides, all the Mac OS and Windows versions of the day were absolute junk.

Yeah, I'll agree with that.

According to Jean-Louis Gassée, BeOS was meant to be "Amiga done right" and "a poor man's SGI". It failed at both, but does seem to be a bit of a blending of Amiga and IRIX. It's another one of those "roadkill OSes". (You look at it squashed and dead on the "road of progress" and say, "Ohh... what a shame.")
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: D-EJ915 on Sat, 30 October 2010, 15:32:07: If you're going to run NeXT get a real system to run it on like a SparcStation 20, they blow the pants off anything NeXT put out. I run on an HP 712/60 which is maxed out and before that a maxed out SS20.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: ch_123 on Sat, 30 October 2010, 15:44:53: I've heard the PA-RISC port of NeXTstep was the best.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: quadibloc on Sun, 31 October 2010, 13:41:04: Quote from: ch_123;240564
I've heard the PA-RISC port of NeXTstep was the best.
The great thing about the NeXTcube was that it came with Mathematica. But that was the original 68020/68881 model.

What good is a great port of NeXTstep if you can't get software to run on it? Although I guess it can run all the software you can run on BSD... which is, of course, true of OS X as well.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: mr_a500 on Sun, 31 October 2010, 14:35:58: Quote from: quadibloc;240797
The great thing about the NeXTcube was that it came with Mathematica. But that was the original 68020/68881 model.

I'm running Mathematica right now on my Amiga - in a Mac emulation on one screen - while simultaneously posting this from the Amiga Workbench screen. (not bad multitasking for a 16Mhz computer)

(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=13248&stc=1&d=1288553466)
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: instantkamera on Mon, 01 November 2010, 06:42:25: Quote from: mr_a500;240828
I'm running Mathematica right now on my Amiga - in a Mac emulation on one screen - while simultaneously posting this from the Amiga Workbench screen. (not bad multitasking for a 16Mhz computer)

Show Image
(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=13248&stc=1&d=1288553466)

never heard of mathematica, but is that the same Wolfram responsible for Wolfram Alpha?

edit:

'tis!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_Research
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: zefrer on Mon, 01 November 2010, 07:12:05: Yup, sure is. I'm expecting Wolfram Alpha to be sold for 5bn or something to .
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: itlnstln on Mon, 01 November 2010, 07:16:03: Quote from: mr_a500;240311
Does your "POS" stand for Point Of Sale... or Piece Of ****?

I was going for "point-of-sale," but in reality, they're usually one in the same.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: jeyoung on Mon, 01 November 2010, 07:36:27: Quote from: kishy;240179
I believe it IS still in use, actually...read something about some ATMs running OS/2 a while ago.

IBM-made ATMs still run OS/2, as far as I know.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: Shawn Stanford on Mon, 01 November 2010, 08:30:26: OS/2 was rock-stable. I ran OS/2 Warp on a well built-out 486 desktop when I was at Sprint in the mid-90s. At one point, I was running six simultaneous FoxPro sessions in separate DOS emulations, several OS/2 apps (like a terminal emulator and a mail client), and at least one Windows 3.1 app in the Windows box with absolutely no problems and outstanding throughput (the FoxPro apps ran in less time concurrently than they did when I ran the consecutively).

Add in a lot of functionality that Windows didn't include for years (right-click context menus came from OS/2) and still doesn't include (OS/2 included REXX with a free windowing extension downloadable from IBM) and OS/2 was the total ****. To this day I miss OS/2 and I'd load it on every machine that I own if the app base and compatibility had kept pace...
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: zefrer on Mon, 01 November 2010, 09:36:31: Too bad Microsoft screwed IBM over with OS/2, it had such good promise
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: ch_123 on Mon, 01 November 2010, 11:36:00: Quote from: jeyoung;241046
IBM-made ATMs still run OS/2, as far as I know.

As far as I know, it was an almost defacto standard for things like ATMs and ticket machines until people switched over to XP.

Why you'd use a desktop OS in such a role makes so little sense, but whatever floated people's boats I guess.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: itlnstln on Mon, 01 November 2010, 11:39:22: If they use XP, they're typically using Embedded, which is better for these purpose-built machines. My thing is, if you are going to have a box that, basically, does one thing, use something small like Linux or XP embedded. We even switched our POS equipment to Linux and run a home-brew POS application. It helps keep equipment costs down.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: mr_a500 on Mon, 01 November 2010, 12:01:14: Quote from: ch_123;241116
As far as I know, it was an almost defacto standard for things like ATMs and ticket machines until people switched over to XP.

Using ATM machines from the mid 80's up to 2005, I never once had one crash or fail. Then they converted to Microsoft based ATMs. I couldn't believe the difference. I saw crashes all over the place and many machines "out of service". At one bank, the machine crashed on me, rebooted, crashed again, then went dead - with my card in it!

I've heard stories of ECG machines crashing in hospitals (after converting from dedicated machines to MS-based ones) and technicians having to regularly reboot them.

Can you imagine if a vital heart monitor got a Windows virus?? I think I prefer the days of specifically programmed dedicated computers.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: mr_a500 on Mon, 01 November 2010, 12:25:53: Quote from: zefrer;241037
Yup, sure is. I'm expecting Wolfram Alpha to be sold for 5bn or something to .

I never heard of Wolfram Alpha before.

Ha! I just went there and asked it "Why?" (hoping, like computers in 60's TV shows, the thing would explode in a confusion of logic) - but it just answered, "Because."
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: EverythingIBM on Tue, 02 November 2010, 09:10:58: All of this talk about OS/2 Warp is making me want to try it (and IBM did release drivers for it for my PC 300; if they didn't, I'd be a little concerned!).
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: ch_123 on Tue, 02 November 2010, 11:23:07: Quote from: itlnstln;241119
If they use XP, they're typically using Embedded, which is better for these purpose-built machines. My thing is, if you are going to have a box that, basically, does one thing, use something small like Linux or XP embedded. We even switched our POS equipment to Linux and run a home-brew POS application. It helps keep equipment costs down.

Nah, they use XP Pro.

Apparently Diebold uses it on their voting machines...
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: ch_123 on Tue, 02 November 2010, 11:24:38: Quote from: mr_a500;241131
I've heard stories of ECG machines crashing in hospitals (after converting from dedicated machines to MS-based ones) and technicians having to regularly reboot them.

I hear stuff like that is common in Canada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25)
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: mr_a500 on Tue, 02 November 2010, 11:39:30: Quote from: ch_123;241625
I hear stuff like that is common in Canada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25)

I bet it was a secret government attempt to create an Incredible Hulk. (apparently, if you increase gamma rays, you get an angry green Lou Ferrigno)

"The failure only occurred when a particular nonstandard sequence of keystrokes was entered on the VT-100 terminal..."

Maybe they should have used a standard sequence of keystrokes.

I'll see if I can recreate the experiment using my new VT-100 keyboard:

(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=13247&d=1288544015)
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: zefrer on Tue, 02 November 2010, 11:52:21: Quote from: ch_123;241623
Nah, they use XP Pro.

Apparently Diebold uses it on their voting machines...

Yes they do and yes it does. In the last Blackhat conference there was this guy that showed how he can crack into any ATM running windows and later control them remotely over the internet. Fun stuff.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: mr_a500 on Tue, 02 November 2010, 11:53:58: Whoa! It looks like Canada isn't the only country experimenting in Hulks. Here's the Incredible DogHulk:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/whippetDM1207_468x669.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467985/Meet-Incredible-Hulk-Hounds.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467985/Meet-Incredible-Hulk-Hounds.html)

The dog is from the UK, but lives in a farm in Canada. (...probably after travelling from town to town, solving crimes, hulking out, then moving on...)
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: itlnstln on Tue, 02 November 2010, 12:32:35: Quote from: mr_a500;241642
Whoa! It looks like Canada isn't the only country experimenting in Hulks. Here's the Incredible DogHulk:

Show Image
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/whippetDM1207_468x669.jpg)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467985/Meet-Incredible-Hulk-Hounds.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467985/Meet-Incredible-Hulk-Hounds.html)

The dog is from the UK, but lives in a farm in Canada. (...probably after travelling from town to town, solving crimes, hulking out, then moving on...)

GTL - Gravy Train and Licking.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: zefrer on Tue, 02 November 2010, 13:52:57: Quote from: mr_a500;241138
I never heard of Wolfram Alpha before.

Ha! I just went there and asked it "Why?" (hoping, like computers in 60's TV shows, the thing would explode in a confusion of logic) - but it just answered, "Because."

Why not? (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=why+not%3F)

:heh:
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: quadibloc on Tue, 02 November 2010, 19:54:39: Quote from: mr_a500;241632
I'll see if I can recreate the experiment using my new VT-100 keyboard:
Interesting. The keycaps seem to be nonstandard. The VT52 terminal, and the VT78 word processor, had nice colorful keycaps, but the usual run of VT100s - which that is a keyboard for, not one of those other two, because they didn't have the row of cursor keys at the top - had a bland color scheme, all the keys being black with white lettering.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: Oqsy on Tue, 02 November 2010, 23:27:04: Quote from: mr_a500
I've heard stories of ECG machines crashing in hospitals (after converting from dedicated machines to MS-based ones) and technicians having to regularly reboot them.

I don't know of ANY ECG machines on the market that use any MS OS. Perhaps you refer to telemetry systems, or cardiac ultrasound machines? The ECG machines are still using very dedicated software and hardware because there's no reason not to. I use a GE MAC5500 on a daily basis, as well as a Philips Sonos 7500, and an IE33, and I can tell you that the Philips machines use WindowsXP Embedded for networking, and that's all... The GE EKG machine has nothing remotely resembling XP on it, nor should it.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: mr_a500 on Tue, 02 November 2010, 23:59:52: Quote from: Oqsy;241920
I don't know of ANY ECG machines on the market that use any MS OS. Perhaps you refer to telemetry systems, or cardiac ultrasound machines? The ECG machines are still using very dedicated software and hardware because there's no reason not to. I use a GE MAC5500 on a daily basis, as well as a Philips Sonos 7500, and an IE33, and I can tell you that the Philips machines use WindowsXP Embedded for networking, and that's all... The GE EKG machine has nothing remotely resembling XP on it, nor should it.

You're right. It was the blood testing computers and other lab work computers, not the ECG machines. So hopefully Windows is not installed on anything vital. :wink:

Here's a hospital blue-screen. (only an information computer, though)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3277/2943013922_13586f2525.jpg?v=0)

If you can't find the information you need on the hospital board, you can always make a phone call.
(http://www.pat-lam.com/wp-content/uploads/blue-screened-bt-phone.jpg)

Just don't expect to be going anywhere...
(http://www.walyou.com/img/blue-screen-of-death-prague.jpg)
(http://www.walyou.com/img/blue-screen-of-death-airport.jpg)
(http://www.walyou.com/img/blue-screen-of-death-subway.jpg)
(http://www.walyou.com/img/blue-screen-of-death-gas-2.jpg)
(http://www.walyou.com/img/blue-screen-of-death-mcdonalds.jpg)
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: ricercar on Wed, 03 November 2010, 01:57:18: I bought Mathematicafor Macintosh System 6 in grad school with a student discount. I figured it made a $50 game as well as any other software boX I could buy off the shelf. k Was WAY cool!
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: keyboardlover on Wed, 03 November 2010, 07:46:23: Quote from: didjamatic;240021

If you seriously use Win 3.1 that is hardcore.

I don't think using an antiquated OS is so much "hardcore" as it is "boring" and "lame".
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: ch_123 on Wed, 03 November 2010, 16:36:15: Depends on whether you define antiquated in terms of age, or sheer uselessness. In the case of Windows 3.11, it's both, so I'd agree.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: microsoft windows on Wed, 03 November 2010, 16:48:40: Quote from: mr_a500;241937

Just don't expect to be going anywhere...
Show Image
(http://www.walyou.com/img/blue-screen-of-death-prague.jpg)

Show Image
(http://www.walyou.com/img/blue-screen-of-death-airport.jpg)

Show Image
(http://www.walyou.com/img/blue-screen-of-death-mcdonalds.jpg)

All three of those systems in those pictures are using Windows 3.1.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: TexasFlood on Wed, 03 November 2010, 17:05:48: Quote from: ricercar;240382
OS/2 Warp totally pwned Win3, NT, and Win 95. Microsoft should not have dropped IBM; IBM knew more about writing and maintaining an OS than Microsoft ever will.

Show Image
(http://geekhack.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=13235&stc=1&d=1288409464)

Unfortunately Micro$ofts area of expertise is in crushing competition.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: TexasFlood on Wed, 03 November 2010, 17:07:36: Quote from: ch_123;240417
If I was using computers back then, I'd want me an SGI IRIX workstation. Now that a great OS for its time...

Used to have an SGI Indigo 2 workstation with two big wonderful monitors, it was great.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: TexasFlood on Wed, 03 November 2010, 17:08:55: Quote from: kishy;240179
I believe it IS still in use, actually...read something about some ATMs running OS/2 a while ago.

I saw OS/2 running in production data centers as recent as a couple of years ago. They might still be there, but I haven't been to look.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: CodeChef on Wed, 03 November 2010, 19:45:39: Does anyone realize OS/2 has been remade as eComStation? Apparently it's *somewhat* popular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EComStation
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: microsoft windows on Wed, 03 November 2010, 19:48:01: That's interesting. I don't recollect hearing anything about eConStation ever before.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: D-EJ915 on Wed, 03 November 2010, 22:59:39: Considering you have never used a good OS before I am 100% not surprised. The OS/2 guys are actually pretty incredible, they churn out firefox ports like nobody's business.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: CodeChef on Thu, 04 November 2010, 08:22:11: Quote from: D-EJ915;242378
Considering you have never used a good OS before I am 100% not surprised. The OS/2 guys are actually pretty incredible, they churn out firefox ports like nobody's business.

Ouch. What do you define as a "good" OS? If you say anything Apple-developed, I will internet-*****-slap you.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: microsoft windows on Thu, 04 November 2010, 17:17:32: Quote from: D-EJ915;242378
Considering you have never used a good OS before I am 100% not surprised. The OS/2 guys are actually pretty incredible, they churn out firefox ports like nobody's business.

MA-DOS is a perfectly good OS.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: zefrer on Fri, 05 November 2010, 09:19:57: According to certain definitions of 'good' :heh:
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: quadibloc on Sat, 06 November 2010, 02:12:22: Quote from: CodeChef;242474
Ouch. What do you define as a "good" OS? If you say anything Apple-developed, I will internet-*****-slap you.
What I think of as an OS that in some ways would be an improvement on Windows and even Linux - as a basis; it's kind of out of date, and thus missing some newer features - would be VAX/VMS.

And I'm shamelessly partial to the Michigan Terminal System as well.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: ch_123 on Sat, 06 November 2010, 08:52:46: Supposedly Irish Rail had a VAX which had VMS up for almost twenty years straight, and was only restarted in order to test it for Y2K compliance.

That is indeed a good OS.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: CodeChef on Sat, 06 November 2010, 21:28:32: Yeah, OK. But it's a server OS. I'm talking desktop OSes here. If you can find a modern desktop OS that's better than Windows (easy) and Linux (hard) then I'll eat my shorts.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: ch_123 on Sun, 07 November 2010, 07:51:50: I'm tempted to say OS X, half-trollingly, half seriously.

Incidentally, VMS was sold as a workstation OS for quite some time. However, using CDE as a desktop environment is about as rewarding as slamming your balls on a cupboard door.
Title: Windows 3.1... Really?
Post by: microsoft windows on Sun, 07 November 2010, 08:56:44: Windows 2000 is a good home operating system. It starts up and shuts down extremely fast on a home network with no customization/optomization. It's compatible with just about everything but iTunes. It will also run very well on just about any computer system made in the last 15 years, with just about the only optomization needed being the occasional run through the start-up processes and services.

If an OS requires little maintenance, runs fast, and is compatible with most software, isn't that the definition of a good operating system?

And with Windows 3.1, you can't do everything on it, but I still use it for a lot of my Internet browsing, Solitaire playing, and word processing.