Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Mar 2006 21:59 UTC, submitted by i386DX
Windows However old, Windows 3.x is still being used. Calmira XP 4.0 beta gives the Windows 3.x desktop the WinXP look-and-feel. In this new version an XP taskbar has been added, and even experimental support for long file names. Other things Calmira includes is the XP login screen, and more. And here it is, boys and girls, the obligatory screenshot.
Order by: Score:
Useless, but cool
by vondur on Mon 6th Mar 2006 22:20 UTC
vondur
Member since:
2005-07-07

I hope not too many people are still using Windows 3.x. Windows NT 3.5 was a decent operating system back in the day.

Reply Score: 1

Miss the old days
by djst on Mon 6th Mar 2006 22:21 UTC
djst
Member since:
2005-08-07

This makes me want to install Windows 3.1 again. ;)

Reply Score: 2

WHY?
by Adurbe on Mon 6th Mar 2006 22:23 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

why oh why would u still use 3.x?!

im trying to rack my brain for a NON hobby reason!

p.s. I dont mean to detract from the skill of the devs in any way, I just feel their skills might be better utilised

Reply Score: 2

RE: WHY?
by Celerate on Mon 6th Mar 2006 23:09 UTC in reply to "WHY?"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

I suppose you either weren't around or don't remember back when there was an article about a bus station still using old commodore computers. They crashed and were rebooted and someone got pics of what iirc was a commodore 64 splash screen on the bus station monitors.

Some people still have ancient productions machines, the likes of which would normally be in a museum by now.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: WHY?
by Ronald Vos on Tue 7th Mar 2006 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE: WHY?"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

They crashed and were rebooted and someone got pics of what iirc was a commodore 64 splash screen on the bus station monitors.

Hmm, C=64 didn't have a splashscreen, since they booted instantly. ;)
I presume you mean the BASIC-prompt; I would love to see screenshots of that.

EDIT: found em

Edited 2006-03-07 08:44

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: WHY?
by viton on Tue 7th Mar 2006 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE: WHY?"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

if it works, why not? =)

Reply Score: 2

RE: WHY?
by gonzalo on Tue 7th Mar 2006 06:56 UTC in reply to "WHY?"
gonzalo Member since:
2005-07-06

There's a bunch of machines about 10 metres from my desk, about 5 - 10 of them. Cheap old boxes with 3.1 on them. They keep running some virtual operators on an oooold program that sends data somewhere.

Sure, we do have a program which can send the data directly, without having to actually run the original program (about 40 times faster). But ask management and they'll tell you they don't want to spend even a day setting up a machine to use the new program when they have these things that work mostly ok.

My suspicion is that the real reason is nobody knows exactly what operations these boxes are doing.

Reply Score: 1

Now this is something
by somebody on Mon 6th Mar 2006 22:28 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

[joke] some people born in the year when 3.x was out are now legaly drinking alcohol, but system still keeps with updates. [/joke]

Lets see if updates will continue even after the refference people start dying.

Reply Score: 2

Nice one
by Bringbackanonposting on Mon 6th Mar 2006 22:31 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

Classic. That looks impressive. Imagine if the dev(s) came up with this interface and concept back then. They would have been rich by now.

Reply Score: 1

Still using Windows 3.1
by juicewvu on Mon 6th Mar 2006 22:32 UTC
juicewvu
Member since:
2006-02-14

I work for a large phramaceutical company and we still have some embedded devices attached to eqipment which produces our drugs, some of these embedded devices still run windows 3.1 and cannot be replaced ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Still using Windows 3.1
by joelito_pr on Mon 6th Mar 2006 22:36 UTC in reply to "Still using Windows 3.1"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

WTF!!!

You have critical equipment running on that dinosaur??!

Kudos to your IT staff man, I mean It.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still using Windows 3.1
by Kroc on Mon 6th Mar 2006 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Still using Windows 3.1"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

You misunderstand the term dinosaur.

In this situation Win3.1 works, is working, has worked without failure ever since. Why then is running critical equipment on something that has been running for 13 years without failure, wrong?

I'd rather scoff at Windows XP and how often it fails to do the simplest of tasks. Said IT staff would have to be total morons to think that replacing a working system, just because it's old is a wise idea.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Still using Windows 3.1
by segedunum on Tue 7th Mar 2006 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still using Windows 3.1"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd rather scoff at Windows XP and how often it fails to do the simplest of tasks. Said IT staff would have to be total morons to think that replacing a working system, just because it's old is a wise idea.

They may not be able to replace it either, especially with a running system performing a critical function. If it's working, their time is going to be better spent on things that actually matter.

People, and companies like Microsoft, have this really bizarre idea that everybody rips everything out as soon as a new version of Windows pops up. They don't and they can't. As computers, and software, get used for a wider spread of different functions you're going to see operating systems from the past, and now, running for decades.

Don't believe me? Look at the amount of companies, particularly large financial companies and banks, who have thirty plus year old COBOL programs running in mainframes. Trust me, they will never be rewritten.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Still using Windows 3.1
by viton on Tue 7th Mar 2006 09:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still using Windows 3.1"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

People, and companies like Microsoft, have this really bizarre idea that everybody rips everything out as soon as a new version of Windows pops up

The same with other MS products.
Office, Visual studio, etc are intentionally not backward compatible to force a user to upgrade.
They just want to rip out YOUR money.

Edited 2006-03-07 10:02

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Still using Windows 3.1
by the__dude on Wed 8th Mar 2006 08:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still using Windows 3.1"
the__dude Member since:
2006-02-27

The same with other MS products.
Office, Visual studio, etc are intentionally not backward compatible to force a user to upgrade.
-------------

For some reason when I use Word in Office 2003 it has options to save my document for an older version and it even opens up documents from previous Word versions... How odd...

Dont know about Visual Studio though. Sometimes if you want to add new features you have to break compatibility for saved files. MS is NOT the only company to do this by the way...

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Still using Windows 3.1
by viton on Wed 8th Mar 2006 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still using Windows 3.1"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Seems i used a wrong word.
Actually i mean what if you open a VS7.0 file in VS7.1 and save it, you can't open it in VS7.0 without any reasons. And they have changed the project format again in VS8.0(2005). As in any VS versions i worked with.
The project format is xml. It is like
[NewSuperTag]title=be cool[/NewSuperTag]
[File]source/main.cpp[/File]
[File]source/main.h[/File]
The good feature of xml file is two-way compatibility (at least on paper).
If you can't read the tag, ignore it. What is the reason to change the tag names, tag layout, etc?

I agree what sometimes breaking compatibility is required, but not with the every version and even revision of the software.

For example if viewing a pdf file from Acrobat7 on my Acrobat5 viewer it just give me a popup what some of the new features will not be displayed.
I don't use MS Office, but i see others have a lot of troubles with it. Too much for me.

So does MS has a technically-blind engineers or they just want you to upgrade.
Guess youself...

Edited 2006-03-08 15:11

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Still using Windows 3.1
by Maciek on Tue 7th Mar 2006 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still using Windows 3.1"
Maciek Member since:
2005-11-15

I'd rather scoff at Windows XP and how often it fails to do the simplest of tasks. Said IT staff would have to be total morons to think that replacing a working system, just because it's old is a wise idea.

Point understood, but would you care to explain how XP "fails to do the simplest od tasks"? I have been using it in a desktop/development environment for almost half a decade, and I have had less problems than with any other operating system that I have ever tried. I can understand why someone in a mission-critical environment would want to stay with 3.x, but why someone would pick 3.x over 2000/XP/etc. in a typical situation is beyond me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Still using Windows 3.1
by lucas on Tue 7th Mar 2006 09:37 UTC in reply to "Still using Windows 3.1"
lucas Member since:
2005-07-08

and you think they would let you risk the stability of these old machine by installing crap of an unknown source like this on them?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Still using Windows 3.1
by RavinRay on Tue 7th Mar 2006 10:02 UTC in reply to "Still using Windows 3.1"
RavinRay Member since:
2005-11-26

And many developing countries - like mine - have a glut of old PC that can be passed on to those who can't afford current PC's, so Win 3.1 (with or without NewWave - one of the better extensions IMHO), or PC/Geos are still viable OS'es.

Reply Score: 1

Re: screenshot
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 6th Mar 2006 22:35 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

That is terrifying!

Reply Score: 3

Strange
by FrankNBeans on Mon 6th Mar 2006 22:38 UTC
FrankNBeans
Member since:
2006-01-30

Even if there is something that still needs Win 3.1 in some way to function, I don't see why a snazier interface would be needed.

Reply Score: 1

the converse
by RMSe17 on Mon 6th Mar 2006 22:40 UTC
RMSe17
Member since:
2006-03-06

I wish there was the inverse of that.. I would love a win 3.1 theme for my WinXP. I personally really dislike the rounded bright default interface of WinXP, and change it to classic style, but if there was a win3.1 skin, I would install it in a heartbeat. Actually, maybe there already is one, I haven't looked around.

Reply Score: 3

RE: the converse
by CodeMonkey on Wed 8th Mar 2006 07:52 UTC in reply to "the converse"
CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

Sure there is. Just edit your system.ini:

shell=progman.exe

8?)

Reply Score: 1

Can't download
by Quietleaf on Mon 6th Mar 2006 23:05 UTC
Quietleaf
Member since:
2005-11-11

I'm a Delphi dev (versions 1.0 through 6.0) and even back to TP 3.0. I'd be interested to take a look at the code to see if there's anything I can contribute, but the link doesn't work.

Reply Score: 1

WOW!
by Jedd on Mon 6th Mar 2006 23:07 UTC
Jedd
Member since:
2005-07-06

WOW! That is totaly awesome! They've come a long way. I remember back in the day, I used to use Win 3.11 for Workgroups, and I started using Calmira around version 2.3 or so. It's nice to see the project is still somewhat alive.

Edited 2006-03-06 23:07

Reply Score: 3

bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

...resurrected Compaq 386...

I had hours of fun tinkering with that thing. Worked nicely on my old AST Advantage! all-in-one (damn that thing was heavy!) and ran better than even the most haxored Windows NT 4.x or Windows 9x... Of course its possible that Linux may have worked better on those systems and I'd have certainly would have enjoyed trying, but at that time I hadn't had a whole lot of experience with Linux and was too afraid to try.

Its nice to see that Calmira development proceeds apace, however I'd be lying if I didn't say I wished there would be a way to combine the work done here with a shell replacement that could run in Windows 9x... sadly the only way to run Windows 3.x on my current hardware is through emulation and that loses half the thrill right there, but there is still a massive amount of support for Windows 9x in both hardware and applications. That and I'd love to find a way to add a Windows XP like login screen to Windows 2000 or Windows 9x...

The link provided in the screenshot page is pointing to the wrong file, you have to go to the front page and hit downloads for the right link. Or you could save some bandwidth for the poor guy now that he's about to be OSNews'd and use this rapidshare link:
[ http://rapidshare.de/files/14874292/calxp40b.exe.html ]

--bornagainpenguin (karma-whore extrodinaire)

Reply Score: 1

RE: RE: Still using Windows 3.1
by hhcv on Mon 6th Mar 2006 23:22 UTC
hhcv
Member since:
2005-11-12

WTF!!!

You have critical equipment running on that dinosaur??!

Kudos to your IT staff man, I mean It.


If it aint't broke... don't fix it. Imagine if they had upgraded to XP and for some reason got hit by a virus? I'm no expert, but, I would imagine that it wold be harder for Win 3.x to be taken down in that same way. I mean really, Win 3 didn't even come with a TCP/IP network stack.

Reply Score: 2

Zoidberg Member since:
2006-02-11

I mean really, Win 3 didn't even come with a TCP/IP network stack.

Windows 3.1 didn't come one, but most browsers from that time installed one for you. Windows for Workgroups did come with the TCP/IP stack and other networking stuff.

Reply Score: 2

mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

>Windows for Workgroups did come with the TCP/IP stack and other networking stuff.

Actually, Windows for Workgroups came with built in network support (3.1 used DOS drivers), but no TCP/IP. A TCP/IP stack for WfW was included on the NT 3.5 CD-ROM and an updated version (with support for DHCP) was released later.

A while back I installed WfW 3.11 on an old Compaq 386 laptop, with Calmira II (the official version, Calmira XP is "fork") and a program called PrWin98 that themed all the titlebars, controls, etc. to look like 95.
That plus Office 4.2 made it a quite useful portable wordproccessing machine for my grandfather.

Reply Score: 1

Missin' the goo' ol' day
by werfu on Mon 6th Mar 2006 23:37 UTC
werfu
Member since:
2005-09-15

I've realy began using a computer using Win3.1 and DOS5.0 and I still miss it simplistic GUI. Well, I know it was so much user friendly, but it worked. Still I haven't used it for years, Win98 and 2000 and later on XP having took the place. And not to forgot KDE 1.2 to 3.5.1 that always been installed on my Linux installation too.

I wonder if it would install on my AMD64 2800+ and my GeForce FX 5700LE... do anybody know if there is NVidia driver working with recent hardware for Win3.1 or maybe a Win 3.1 theme for WindowBlind or KDE.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Missin' the goo' ol' day
by mallard on Tue 7th Mar 2006 00:46 UTC in reply to "Missin' the goo' ol' day"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06
WTF
by nzjrs on Tue 7th Mar 2006 00:22 UTC
nzjrs
Member since:
2006-01-02

That thing is amazing. Pointless, but Amazing!

Reply Score: 1

JustThinkIt
Member since:
2005-09-04

System Resource limits were the main problem with Windows, pre Windows 9x. Without fixing that, one can run very few modern programs at once -- 2 if you are lucky. And I imagine a complex theme would use up resources itself. Sorry but I can't see this as an improvement on 3.x...

Floyd
http://www.just-think-it.com

Reply Score: 1

Lipstick on a Pig
by Hae-Yu on Tue 7th Mar 2006 01:55 UTC
Hae-Yu
Member since:
2006-01-12

Why anyone would still use Win 3.11 as a desktop OS is beyond me. I would rather maintain a super computer than a desktop OS in an office or (heaven's no!!) relative's home environment. Users, God help them. The big point is: why would you put a multitasking UI on top of an OS that barely supports multitasking? If you use those old systems (win 3.11, OS 8...), you probably don't multitask much and the UI, as is, is well suited for those original uses.

As to the critical infrastructure statement - much of your air traffic is on Win 3.11 and DOS. If it does what you need, why not use the 3000 year old shovel over a jackhammer? (FYI - the FAA software that bugged in CA in '04 was caused by the software on top, not the platform itself). A lot of critical systems run on older software - 3.11, DOS, Solaris 2.6 & 5.8, NT4SP6 that I personally work with. It takes so long for a system to work it's way through the evaluation process, it is well out of date by the time it is rolled out. But it is stable and it does its job.

People really have to understand that IT purposes are only a fraction of the computer market.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Lipstick on a Pig
by Omega Penguin on Tue 7th Mar 2006 02:12 UTC in reply to "Lipstick on a Pig"
Omega Penguin Member since:
2006-02-12

Simple.Windows 3.1 on a new computer equals a screamer.On a Pentium 3 PC,the windows open up so fast they smack the back of the screen.And,since Windows 3.1 can be modified to support modern technologies like Ethernet,it is good for people who only need a very fast web browser or PDF viewer.

Reply Score: 4

eCS and OS/2
by Kancept on Tue 7th Mar 2006 02:59 UTC
Kancept
Member since:
2006-01-09

Calmira works in OS/2 and eComStation, and we have a few apps that use it. This isn't just a front end, but it has functionality as well.

Reply Score: 1

Done Before
by evdjj3j on Tue 7th Mar 2006 03:11 UTC
evdjj3j
Member since:
2006-01-10

Is this not just basically Windows ME.

Reply Score: 1

I never understood Calmira
by Zoidberg on Tue 7th Mar 2006 03:20 UTC
Zoidberg
Member since:
2006-02-11

I love the Windows 3.1 interface, that's probably the main reason I'd want to run it. Getting rid of it for the boring 95 GUI seems senseless. Windows 3.1 is not very stable though and of course can't run 32-bit programs (except for a few that work with win32s installed). That's why Windows NT 3.51 is so great. The speed and appearance of Windows 3.1 with the stability and features of NT, plus it runs plenty of modern programs like Firefox just fine. ;)

Reply Score: 1

windows/nt 3.x is so cool
by rx182 on Tue 7th Mar 2006 04:26 UTC
rx182
Member since:
2005-07-08

i think must of you are wrong here. there are still alot of things to do with a windows/nt 3.x box.

first, microsoft released a long long time ago a complete network stack for windows 3.x (it looks exactly like the one they released for win9x/nt.)

second, hardware support is still excellent, at least for network cards. so you can get a beautiful windows/nt 3.x box without much effort.

third, its a great way to learn about core windows programming (the same could be done with all versions of windows, btw). the windows api never really changed and a win16 application isnt so different than the win32 equivalent. plus you have the pleasure to optimize your stuff to make it fast enough to run on old hardware.

finally, "it puts the fun back into computing". what else do need if you can get a browser, a irc client, and a good old dos to run your favorite games like doom?

i enjoy booting some old windows 3.x once in a while. at least when im sick of computers. maybe some of you really enjoy the fancy new ui of winxp/kde/gnome whatever and "programming" with some scripting languages, but you really miss something ;)

Reply Score: 2

Nice STUFF !!!
by Angel--Fr@gzill@ on Tue 7th Mar 2006 09:39 UTC
Angel--Fr@gzill@
Member since:
2005-12-23

Nice STUFF !!!
I discover Calmira 1 year and a half ago . I just installed it for fun, in a 486, and did not use it really. I think is really a good idea, and the last version seems pretty enjoyable!!!

Plenty of people posting here come from wealthy countries, and tend to think outdated OS and software is not usefull. Wrong !!!
As some post prove, even in rich countries is still usefull. Not to mention in other countries where could be very useful for old PCs ( PI, 486, and yes even 386) if they already have the hardware and the software and know how to use and all the stuff do the job ... Why not??? Something like Calmira can only revive and improve all that old stuff...

I only see a problem.. Its for Windows !!! ;)

Angel

Reply Score: 1

BY THE WAY !!!
by Angel--Fr@gzill@ on Tue 7th Mar 2006 10:09 UTC
Angel--Fr@gzill@
Member since:
2005-12-23

BY THE WAY !!!

What i really would like to see is something like that , but for Windows 95 or 98.

Windows 95 B and c, are pretty usefull and quick, even in a 486 PC, if you add a nicer GUI, etc like Calmira does for Windows 3x or OS2, it would be much nice to work with, and still be usable in many parts of the world (including wealthy countries, as I said).

I would be very interesting to see a program containing all the updates, patches, and improvements for Windows 95 with 1 single click !!!
Something lke the "unofficial Windows 98 Service Pack", but for Windows 95, and including Calmira or a similar GUI...

Would be and interesting GUI to update Windows 98 too!

Maybe someone will port Calmira to Windos 32bits: 95/98 ???

I do LOVE reviving old stuff, specially 486 DX2 - DX4, And Pentium ones!!!
.. and Making these old machines almost perfect desktops of today.

It's possible, and they are still very usable as general desktops. Just adding Ram, and improving the software(and replacing some hardware too, if you want)...

Calmira can only revive and improve all that old stuff... Pitifully, Its for Windows !!! ;)

But I would like to see too, much nicer GUIs in Damn, Small Linux, Puppy Linux, Beatrix Linux.., and a really usable Office suite, able to fully replace office 97, or CorelOffice, for the Old PCs as 486, and Pentium I..

This could still change the computing ways, working habbits, and lifes of many people in the world...!!!

Not saying the can not take advantage too of the new PCs and soft if they can.. They must of course, but not always is viable ...

Angel- Fr@gzill@
!!!

Reply Score: 1

Old Hardware
by xaoslaad on Tue 7th Mar 2006 11:27 UTC
xaoslaad
Member since:
2006-03-07

We had a Wang VS6000 that was actively used back in the day for critical business. As time moved on that system was used less and less until it no longer became critical for anything. However, it was useful for reference, and was still found useful from time to time.

It was not deamed cost efficient to move the data off, and as it was one of our employees was a big wig tech at Wang who knew the system inside and out before Wang nose dived, so long after we stoppped paying for it we still had very good support.

Management made the decision not to pump any money into the system after a certain point, as it was not necessary, but decided to keep it around for as long as it would run. The system ran forever, without physically breaking, up until a couple years ago.

And how did the PC's out on our network connected to the archaic old system? You guessed it, a Windows for Workgroups 3.11 PC via TCP/IP that was plugged into the VS6000 via an adapter card. It was stable; it worked; it did what was needed. The software for access was easy as pie to install, and never had problems.

I don't think I would have been installing this on the workstations though, as the part where it was stable and required virtually no support was one of the key parts. And I think that is the problem with most people still using Windows 3.11. They have it running something very stable they would not muck with in a business environment, rather than on a hobby home PC.....

Reply Score: 1

kool
by systemx on Tue 7th Mar 2006 13:20 UTC
systemx
Member since:
2006-01-20

this is the koolest thing i have ever seen and have never wanted. ever!!!

Reply Score: 1

Old WinNT handles newer hardware poorly.
by JamesFox on Tue 7th Mar 2006 14:30 UTC
JamesFox
Member since:
2005-12-17

The primary advantage of using Windows 3.1 (or in my case, Windows for Workgroups 3.11) over the early versions of Windows NT is that since Win16 uses DOS, you can expand its capabilities by using an advanced version of DOS. For example, my Athlon-based computer has a 150 GiB drive, with a data partition using FAT32. Pre version 4, WinNT did not support FAT32, or drives larger than 8 GiB. However, my Wfwg 3.11 does. Of course, its not very practical to install very old OS's like this on new hardware.

Reply Score: 1

It doesn't work under VPC?
by valnar on Tue 7th Mar 2006 15:24 UTC
valnar
Member since:
2006-01-17

I'm trying to install it under a DOS 6.22/Win3.1 installation I have with MS VirtualPC. If I run the executable file, I get the following errors in two windows back to back.

1: Win32S - Error
C:TEMPXP_PAG~1.EXE: Invalid format

2: Application Execution Error
Unexpected DOS error: 21.

Yes, I have the Win32S extentions installed under my copy of Windows 3.1 (not WFWG 3.11). Does that matter, or is it VPC?

Reply Score: 1

Special software
by Jimmy on Tue 7th Mar 2006 21:12 UTC
Jimmy
Member since:
2005-07-06

I remember working part time at a little store several years ago (around 1999) that sold packaging materials (cardboard, peanuts, etc) and shipped stuff out through UPS and Fedex. We used an old computer from 1994, made by Zenith Computer Systems that ran Windows 3.1. It was a nice little machine, but everyday I worked I wondered why they had not upgraded the machine.

I racked my brains wondering why they used such an old machine, especially when they had new Pentium II machines that they used for a internet cafe type ordeal.

Turns out the POS computer programs they were using were 16-bit Windows applications that would not work in W9x. The company did not want to switch software, or hire someone to write a new program, and were basically stuck using 3.1 systems.

Since then, I have come across a lot of small businesses that still use 3.1 for their special software. I think Calmira XP is awesome for these environments.

Reply Score: 2