To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I have an IBM 486 running Windows 3.1 in our server room. I use it as a terminal to configure hardware. Not that I really need this computer to do that, but it's more fun.
It's quite a fast system.
And Windows 3.1 on a 386 wasn't bad either. Even Windows 3.0 on a 286 was pretty decent.
My primary school got P100 16 MiB Win95, for 96-97 school year (all 5 of them ...for 13-15 person groups; not like it made much difference, because a) the curriculum was a bit silly b) even hardly followed; so those were mostly gaming machines for class ~rascals ...in all very much like religion lessons, when you could just do some homework and such, or - in high school - play cards
)
A bit later, thanks to reshuffling in the administration, one more was added: some 386 with 4 MiB (IIRC) and Win 3.1 - considerably less "popular" since, well, it was without any games (perhaps the lack of CD-ROM was stopping those who installed a collection on the other, perhaps they just didn't have any which work on 386 and/or thought to be worth anything)
And so, from the peaceful exploration of Win 3.1 on that 386, I seem to clearly remember a strong impression that its ~desktop felt as snappy, if not more, as P100 Win95 machines (but perhaps the impression on the latter was also impacted by often clogged - since actually used - ball mouses)
Too bad there really wasn't anything to do - no software, no documentation, no guru around, no network (not even between those machines); boring.
Oh well, at least I quickly realized that just deleting shortcuts to games is a show-stopper for ~rascals
(not like I was taking advantage or smth, having only C64 at home, I think even broken by then; and those were hypothetically school lessons after all)




Member since:
2006-07-14
Whoah. Just hold on a sec. I ran windows 3.1 on a 386, and it was good stuff man. I think you mean Windows 95 on a 486 ... SX. That was bad news.