Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Nov 2008 16:12 UTC, submitted by Michael
Thread beginning with comment 336443
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I liked 3.x, actually. ran well for me on my old computers. for a long time i was stuck on a 386-sx 25mhz with 8mb of ram for YEARS... It is amazing what all you can do with 3.11, still.
even use WiFi with it.
even use WiFi with it. oh, gosh... that would've been an absolute dream! haha. i was stuck with a 386sx 16mhz machine with ***TWO*** megs of ram for what seemed like an eternity. luckily i had a 387 math coprocessor. but, upgrading to more ram was absolutely horrible! my motherboard didn't support simms, which were fairly standard, even then. i needed to track down these crazy 64k naked chips and press them into the motherboard!!! it was insanity! and, after that, there was all kinds of goofy config i had to do in the bios. i ended up with 4 megs total. windows 3.1 actually ran pretty well on that, by my standards at the time.
i eventually tracked down a cyrix 386->486 accelerator. sadly, that fried my motherboard, somehow. and that, my friends, is when i realized that if it seems to good to be true, it probably is.
anyway, more on topic... windows 3.1 seemed sooo very futuristic to me, with its system sounds. 'TADAAA!!!' i bought a cheap disney sound source (parallel port soundcard) *JUST* so i could listen to the .wav files installed with windows. the pc speaker had been sufficient for my DOS games, at that point.




Member since:
2005-07-06
I liked 3.x, actually. ran well for me on my old computers. for a long time i was stuck on a 386-sx 25mhz with 8mb of ram for YEARS... It is amazing what all you can do with 3.11, still.
even use WiFi with it.