View Full Version : Did anyone here ever have Windows 3.1

05-12-2007, 02:07 AM
This is rather odd, but I have never had or seen Windows 3.1. I believe it was ther first Windows OS created my M$. If anyone had it, was it any good for the time it was around? Did it have the same sort of features as todays OS like Win XP and Vista?

I have an old desktop pc that has WIndows 95 :) still runs fine too!

05-12-2007, 02:20 AM
I've used Windows 3.1 on a Packard Bell. The hard drive had 800 MB capacity (today's hard drives are around 1 terabyte, over a thousand times bigger) and the processor was something like 533 MHz or something. I don't recall the interface that well because, back then, I almost never used the computer outside DOS. Strange as it seems, I have a program on my hard drive that is from Windows 3.1 (made in May of 1994 - WinDAT). I've never seen Windows 95 nor Me, NT, or 2000. I have seen Windows 98 SE and XP Pro and only brief bits of Windows Vista (from on CNN Headline News).

05-12-2007, 03:00 AM
I had an Intel 386 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_386) running several versions of Windows 3.1x (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x). I have to say that it was a welcome change from the console, since for the very first time, you were able to have a GUI !! (woohoo!) It was so unbelievably great, I played Monkey Island all the time. It's probably the same difference as using a text-browser (lynx) vs. the latest Firefox version.

05-12-2007, 03:43 AM
Even I had a old computer with Win 3.1. I remember on time me and a friend wanted to get our computers into network. I think I was around 10 and was kind of lost when it came to computers. We tried to link them with the power supplies =\

05-12-2007, 04:26 AM
Around this time I had a 286 that ran some version of DOS, and then a 386 that ran DOS + Windows 3.1. Microsoft Arcade ran in Windows 3.1... I still have a copy of it, and it still works for Windows XP. Good times. :)

If you have Windows 98 (and maybe XP), you might be able to start -> run -> progman.exe and get an idea of how Windows Program Manager worked. ;) It doesn't really look much like Windows 3.1, but you can get an idea of what we had to deal with a few years ago.

05-12-2007, 05:14 AM
I had 3.1 and 3.11 (3.11 was just an update, right? I always thought it was a separate version until I just wrote it down there. Was 3.0 like 98 and 3.1 was 98 SE? BSOD? Were they around back then? The blue screens?), I think. I remember getting very easily frustrated though :) But I was about ... 10 or so when I was using it so that's fair enough.

05-12-2007, 05:24 AM

05-12-2007, 05:27 AM
>If anyone had it, was it any good for the time it was around?
Given the choices at the time of an Apple, DOS, and Windows 3.1, I'm surprised Apple doesn't presently have the majority of the personal computer market share. ;)

05-12-2007, 07:54 AM
I'm not. That was when Microsoft held OEMs by the balls. "Bundle our stuff or we cut you out for good!". Wouldn't it have been great if a few of them grew a backbone and said "Fine" before developing their own OS? ;)

Due to the explosion in the IBM compatible market Apple became rather expensive in comparison.

05-12-2007, 10:31 AM
Holy crap this thread makes me feel old

05-12-2007, 10:58 AM
The first Windows by MS was Windows 1.0, duh!

Which, by the way, was a piece of turd covered in bugs.

Windows 3.0 was the first really usable Windows, and Windows 3.1 was better.

The reason Apple didn't gain market share was that IBM-compatibles running DOS had nearly all of it and the applications didn't exist for Apples. So nobody wanted to switch. Windows, since it was just a layer over DOS, could run those apps, Apples could not.

05-12-2007, 11:04 AM
I was playing with Windows 3.11 in grade school. It's not that rare I think.

I did like the Johnny Castaway screen saver. :)

05-12-2007, 01:04 PM
I bought a copy of Windows 268 and a copy of Windows 386 at a book sale (of all things . . .) about a year ago. Haven't tried them yet, as the 268 version (that will run on my old comp) comes on 5.25" floppies (which the old comp doesn't have), and the '368 comes on 1.44MB floppies (which the comp _also_ doesn't have, and besides, it's a 286).

Rashakil Fol
05-12-2007, 01:39 PM
Windows 3.1 on a 25 MHz 486 processor, with a 170 MB hard drive, 12 MB of RAM, a 2x CD ROM drive... It was the greatest minesweeper machine ever made.

05-12-2007, 02:45 PM
First copy of Pagemaker I ever had (when Aldus owned it) ran on a Windows 286 runtime version - it started when you started Pagemaker, and stopped when you exited Pagemaker.

05-12-2007, 03:15 PM
I have a computer running it in my living room right now actually. :) Although it doesn't have a mouse...
I don't remember much about it when we actually used it seriously, because now my brothers and I just make jokes about it. :p Its interface is pretty different from the later Windows versions; there is no start bar or clock (there's a clock program though). The "desktop" holds the running programs, which always includes progman, which functions more like a modern desktop, except it has one of those omnipresent menu bars. If progman is exited, Windows shuts down. Then you have File Manager (http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/managers/filemanager/win31.png), which is sort of like My Computer, only completely different. ;)

05-13-2007, 01:20 AM
I had Windows Executive (1.0), Windows 3.0, and Windows 3.1 and I think there was a 3.11 as well.

All of them royally sucked. Windows 3.0+ crashed and driver availability at that time was next to nil. My Paradise SVGA card would puke on most Windows 3.0+ apps.

05-13-2007, 01:58 AM
>>I think there was a 3.11

Windows for Workgroups?

05-13-2007, 04:29 AM
Here's something some of you might remember... for those who had sound cards at the time, did you ever sometimes find yourself starting Windows 3.1/3.11 after using DOS and finding that the blasted tada.wav that's played at the start would just keep repeating over and over? :mad:

05-13-2007, 09:48 AM
I had Window 3.1 at one time, when I was pretty young (I'd say like, 5?) We had it because my sister got a laptop with it on it for free and I pretty much took it and played with it a lot. I got it to dump information that looked like debugging output on boot; impressive, no? :p

05-13-2007, 04:08 PM
Totally played 'putt putt goes to the moon' and 'destruction derby' on a 3.1

Also had an Apple IIe lab at my elementary school, played a lotta dug-dug.

05-13-2007, 10:04 PM
I was using 3.1 on a 486 from 94 all the way up until 2000 (no, it wasn't because of Y2K :P). It ran very nicely and I must say I liked the fact that it was started from DOS (whereas today is the other way around, and its not even true DOS anymore, but emulated). I used word a lot and I actually still have all my old Word documents saved and they are still openable in the current version. Of course i also used the machine for more *entertaining* applications i.e. Prince of Persia, SQ4, Wacky Wheels, Commander Keen, and... well.. I could reminisce like this forever :P

05-13-2007, 10:34 PM
Given the choices at the time of an Apple, DOS, and Windows 3.1
OS/2 was also a choice... For me - even better, till they dropped full support of Win32 API

05-13-2007, 11:12 PM
This is rather odd, but I have never had or seen Windows 3.1.
Gawd, really, I'm not that old...
The computer behind me is sort of running Win3.1. Truthfully, it runs OS/2, and can more or less do Windows 3.1 because of that. (It's a Compaq Deskpro 386 (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,126692-page,9-c,systems/article.html) from '87, <25MHz I do believe (PC World says 16MHz... I do think my calculator runs faster than 16MHz...). Forget the spec on the RAM/harddisk - haven't turned it on since a circuit breaker for the floor blew...)
The (slightly newer) computer near it runs OS/2 Warp. (The laptop two stories below runs OS/2 Warp as well.)

Did it have the same sort of features as todays OS like Win XP and Vista?Well, let's see... you can play minesweeper in Win3.1. Oh, hey! You can play minesweeper in Vista! Yup, same feature set. ^_^

OS/2 was also a choice... For me - even better, till they dropped full support of Win32 API
It's been hard to find decent documentation of OS/2's API... although it bears an uncanny resemblance to Win32 API. Oh, I wonder why... ;)

EDIT: Not like the one DOS machine we had... 640KB of RAM and what have you. All I know: It had joust! And space invaders. Centipede. You name it, it probably had it. And some chess game with the pieces shooting lasers and magic attacks. Now that was an awesome PC. I don't think there was a single "useful" app on there. All games. Great stuff. Although the OS/2 box had Midwinter, Lightspeed, (both incredible games) and Hack (The Quest for the Amulet of Yendor). And the newer OS/2 box had Doom. I.

05-14-2007, 01:23 AM
I've still got a copy of Windows 3.11 for Workgroups on an old Compaq Laptop!
I use it for when SEGMENTATION FAULT! and such things give me a headache and I want to play about in QBasic.

I still remember the first time I made a program that would change the text to pink and play a terrible rendition of "Automatic" by the Pointer Sisters. It wasn't half as good as that sounds :D

QBasic was fun, 20 GOTO 20 anyone?

05-14-2007, 03:16 PM
I used Windows 3.1 for the first few years that we had a computer in the house...from like 93 to 96 or 97. In either 96 or 97 we upgraged to Windows 95.

We had Windows 95 until about 2000 or 2001, when Windows XP came out, at which time I did a clean install of XP.

But anyways, now I have copies of: Windows 1.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP Pro, Windows XP Media Center, Windows Vista Business

Windows 1.0 is horrible. I have tried installing it on old machines to see if it does anything, and it just seems to stall for me.

I really enjoyed Windows 3.1 a lot. It worked well. Windows 95 was crap.

05-14-2007, 03:30 PM
Windows 1.0 is horrible. I have tried installing it on old machines to see if it does anything, and it just seems to stall for me.

One of the oldest threads around here that I remember was you trying to find that

05-14-2007, 10:37 PM
The first PC I bought was a 286 8MHz with a 10Mb HD and 640Kb RAM and Win 3.1.

Least it had a HD (not floppies only or a cassette tape drive)......

The diff between 3.1 and 3.11 was the removal of DoubleSpace. A drive compression utility MS 'stole', included in 3.1 and had to remove, releasing 3.11.

05-15-2007, 03:02 AM
I didnt have the cash to own one in those days, but I used it in School & University

05-15-2007, 03:25 AM
I believe 3.1 and 3.11 also differed in networking capabilities. That's why 3.11 was "for Workgroups".

05-15-2007, 12:05 PM
CornedBee is correct. The difference between 3.11 and 3.1 is the networking capabilities. 3.11 was much more suited for networking. Any other changes were minor when compared to that one.