OSNews

What was so bad about 3.0?

Don't know, I was happy with it.

Nah it was Windows 3.11 for Workgroups that you were happy with

I am old enough to have tried all Windows versions...

Not sure I wouldn't prefer Win 3 to 8. Maybe not, but 2000 is certainly a goer.

Windows 3.0 was just like Windows 3.1 only with features missing and a lot more bugs.

The good thing was that it did run on a 286 with 1 MB of RAM, IIIRC 3.1 needed a 386 and 2 MB.

The big problem I had with 3.0 and 3.1 that when one application crashed the rest was bound to also blow up.

People may not like 9x, ME and Vista (pre SP1), but they were much better than 3.0 and 3.1 (leaving 3.11 out on purpose).

Nope. I have a laptop with a 286 & 1 MB of RAM and Win 3.1 runs on that beast just fine.

Well, that's a pleasant supprise!

I'll see if I can get 3.1 running on a 286.

True, for the most part.



3.0 was the only version to support all three operating modes: real, standard, and 386 enhanced. Real could run on an 8088 with 640Kb of memory. It also provided great compatibility with real mode Windows 2.x applications, which was effectively removed from 3.1.

I know it's impossible to really go back, but I have a soft spot for 3.0 - it's the first one I developed for, and I still have the SDK manuals on my shelf.

I have an IBM PS/2 286 with Windows 3.0.

It's a nice machine, but sadly the "paint" on the metal case starts to fall off.

I almost bought one!


The first PC I bought, the choice was between a PS/2 286 with OS/2 v1.0 or a 386 SX PC clone with the double of hard disk size running DR-DOS.

Since the 386 was way cheaper than the IBM one, while giving me the opportunity to play with all the 386 cool features, that was the one I took home.

I remember reading an article where they dished the 386. The 286 was better price/performace and it would be improved well far in to the 90's.

For DOS stuff a 286 is, for most things, quite enough.

Nah, DOS stuff worth revisiting is mostly about games (why would you torture yourself with some DOS applications from the day?). Only, those from 286 era are usually not worth anything (PC was bad platform for games at that point; why did people even bother...) - while the later gems really could do with 386 or 486 (or even Pentium, some of them)

Of course, it's usually better to just run them all under DOSbox anyway...

Pretty much all families of consumer OS shared those issues back then. Win 3.x was decent for the times.

Despite all its limitations MS-DOS was pretty stable. It's got a place in my favorite OS list.

You count this one among OS? ;P

I certainly do! BUT on the right computer. The faster/modern a PC is the more DOS sucks, but on an IBM XT with a black/green screen for example it's pretty cool.

NT 4.0 is cool too, on a dual Pentium Pro, but not on a Xeon powered server for example.

But DOS and NT 4 look very unnatural on those machines, even though they'd fly. Well, not sure NT would install on a Xeon or if it does support most if any of they hardware.

Next you'll tell me you also appreciate CP/M?

DOS more or less sucked everywhere, really - you just got used to it, thinking there was no hope for anything better (if only we'd realise back then something like Contiki, SymbOS, or GEOS - both 8 and 16-bit version separately notable)

Not entirely... yeah, it kinda fits a machine of such generation (dual Pentium II 266 in my case), with how light it is - but no USB is a bummer (we really got used to the convenience of USB flash drives, and many newer mouses don't seem to include the logic necessary to work with USB->PS/2 converter). So, for me, 2k fits it better.

That is something I've said for a while since using the preview apps. If Microsoft wants people to use Metro, they're going to have to make the apps better then what we already have.

The mail app is really bad, its not even worth setting up in its current state. Just pin your webmail access to the start screen instead, you'll have a 100% better experiance.

There doesn't seem to be any announcement of killer Metro apps yet, and while I understand that they will come eventually as thats what Microsoft is pushing for, sooner the better in this case.

I'd love to see adobe setup with a native photoshop, but I think we'll see more of gimp or paint.net taking a Metro look.

One program I think would do really well as a Metro app is steam, but I think the way Metro apps work, it'd make it next to impossible for that to happen

"I'll continue using Arch Linux and won't care about Windows 8 for the forseeable future."

Why did you even care in the first place, enough to comment about how awful it is if you are running Arch, are happy with it, and plan on continuing to use it.

They try a little bit too hard don't they.

So, "how boring" because of too great changes, WTH are you people on?

Because $40 is really expensive for something that gets updated for 10 years.

You need a bigger brush.

Sure, everyone should just get everything for free.

It's not windows which did it to you. Do not keep forgetting the pills.