Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Nov 2008 16:12 UTC, submitted by Michael
I collect manuals. I have so many of them, that I'm starting to wonder where on earth I'm supposed to put them all. Somewhere in the back of a closet, I keep all my manuals in three huge boxes, with manuals dating from the early '80s to just a few days ago when I bought a new mouse. However, none of them are as dear to my as my extensive, fully illustrated Dutch manuals for Windows 3.0, which accompanied my parents' first PC in 1990. An enormously detailed manual covering every aspect of Windows 3.0 - with special sleeves for the various floppy disks that held the Windows 3.0 operating system. I still have those original floppies, and they're still fully functional. Last week, the era of Windows 3.x finally came to an end when Microsoft ceased to give out licenses for the operating system.
Thread beginning with comment 336407
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-26
I keep 3.11 WfW around, installed in Dosbox.
3.x succeeded because it ran on top of DOS (unlike OS/2). Microsoft was selling a popular MSDOS at the time and succeeded in pushing this to people. Simple OS, but a leap forward from DOS shell. And much less buggy than the 95 version.
MS should just give it for free now, even if it's against their philosophy. Releasing source also wouldn't harm, although I don't want to see yet another ancient OS revival.
3.x succeeded because it ran on top of DOS (unlike OS/2). Microsoft was selling a popular MSDOS at the time and succeeded in pushing this to people. Simple OS, but a leap forward from DOS shell. And much less buggy than the 95 version.
MS should just give it for free now, even if it's against their philosophy. Releasing source also wouldn't harm, although I don't want to see yet another ancient OS revival.
But is Win3.x technically an OS considering it just sat on top of DOS?
And, more importantly, would any programmers really be interested in reviving a GUI for DOS given how irrellevent DOS OS is these days*?
* irrellevent in the 'pure OS' sense. Sure people use DOS shells in NT for speed / scripting or DOSBOX on *nix for backward compatability with MS-DOS applications, but that's hardly the same as running DOS as purely as an OS (thus demanding a need for a windows front-end).
Edited 2008-11-05 22:34 UTC
Member since:2005-07-13
DOS is still plrenty relivant in the embded world. http://www.datalight.com/products/romdos/ datalight's ROM DOS for example is used in certain markets where i have worked. I run into DR Doss every now and then as well. DOS is still around, it will likely never truly die. (flash to 30 years in the future: SkyNet it powered by MS DOS 6, that somehow became sentiant). "C DOS RUN, Run DOS Run"
Member since:2005-07-06
But is Win3.x technically an OS considering it just sat on top of DOS?
It's been argued that DOS wasn't truly an OS either
The line of reasoning that I tend to agree with is that the combination of the two (Win3.x and DOS) formed something that vaguely resembled an OS, but neither were truly OSes on their own.
And, more importantly, would any programmers really be interested in reviving a GUI for DOS given how irrellevent DOS OS is these days*?
There are still people working on FreeDOS, so I expect there would be at least one or two crazy folk who would be interested in the source code (even if just to critique/criticize the quality of the code).
Member since:
2006-01-17
I keep 3.11 WfW around, installed in Dosbox.
3.x succeeded because it ran on top of DOS (unlike OS/2). Microsoft was selling a popular MSDOS at the time and succeeded in pushing this to people. Simple OS, but a leap forward from DOS shell. And much less buggy than the 95 version.
MS should just give it for free now, even if it's against their philosophy. Releasing source also wouldn't harm, although I don't want to see yet another ancient OS revival.