Do you still use the old Microsoft Windows 3.1(1 for Workgroups)? It still holds some value for some people, but the old Program Manager isn’t all that great for today’s standards, says ABZone. That’s why Calmira exists, it’s a shell for Windows 3.1 that gives you a Windows 95 look-and-feel. Calmira XP goes a step further; it has a Windows XP interface for Windows 3.11.
Calmira XP 3.32; shell for Windows 3.11
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
screenshots anywere?
You don’t know how Windows XP looks like? ;P
I can’t seem to connect to the site linked in the article, but you can find some screenshots (and source code, etc) of Calmira at: http://calmira.de/screenshots/index.htm
I’m just wondering what kind of a hit in speed hit the new shell would create. Sure it would probably run great on a new machine, but most 3.1 machines are 486’s with 8 mb of ram and 1 mb of video.
Also, old video cards and drivers may make the interface pretty hideous looking.
And what about space? Back when hard drives were < 256 mb, space was a concern.
I’d like to see a video of a P75 with old hardware running it and see how it goes.
I remember using PC Tools on top of Windows 3.1. That was a great utility. It included a shell which replaced the old Windows desktop with multiple desktops.
“You don’t know how Windows XP looks like? ;P”
I try to forget
“I can’t seem to connect to the site linked in the article, but you can find some screenshots (and source code, etc) of Calmira at: http://calmira.de/screenshots/index.htm“
thanx!
I’d like to see a video of a P75 with old hardware running it and see how it goes.
The link to the screenshots shows one on a 386SX25 with 6MB RAM. The comments written state that he is “really surprised how fast the system works. After all, a 386SX
with 25 Mhz (and without FPU) is one of the slowest 386 processors.
The Windows start itself needs ca 25 seconds, I’ve seen much slower
starts of real Windows 98 on Pentium PCs. Programs like Works 3.0
start within 5 or 6 seconds and run perfectly stable.”
Sounds like it isn’t too much of a resource hog…
Actually, when I ran 3.1 a year ago on my old 486DX/33 with 8 MB RAM, it performed rather well as a shell. Since it replaces program manager as the Windows Shell, there is no performance loss. While running Calmira only takes 2 MB of RAM, and the advantage to it is that you get a more modern interface. To set it as you shell, simply change the one setting in SYSTEM.INI go read “shell=c:calmiracalmira.exe”.
You still have the old Windows 3.1x style minimise, maximize and close buttons, but that can be also patched with PATCHDRV.EXE, or with Mask98. I prefer Mask98, as it mimics the Windows 95 style down to a “T”. It even gives you 3D drop menus like in the 9x releases. The only bad part about it is that it covers up your desktop with the blue backround. If there was a way to disable that, it would be very good.
As far as apperance is concerned, Calmira looks great even in 16 color mode. It looks identical to the Windows 95 desktop as soon as you set it up. I have no idea about CalmiraXP, as I have only used that in VPC. There are also many different add-ons available that will get Windows 3.1 to look more like WIndows 95. Example, you can change the startup logo, add the “It is now safe to turn off your computer” dialoque, add a shutdown screen, replace the Task Manager, add the Windows 95 start menu banner, a 95 like control panel, a newer registry editor, and many other enhancements.
With all of the add-ins, about the only diffeence between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 is no LFN support, (but this can be bypassed by using 4DOS descriptions as the displayed filename), limited ability to run 32 bit programs with a hacked Win32s, and no FAT32 support, (and this can be bypassed by installing Weinger’s DOS 7.10).
Also, even with a very small HDD, (my 486 HDD is only 125 MB), calmira takes very little space. A basic calmira installation, (with no add-ons), only takes 2.5 MB of HDD space. With all of the enhacements, it may take 15 MB. That is equivilant to the amout of space that Windows 3.11 and DOS 6.22 take up when fully installed, so it is very space conservetive.
Calmira is also distributed under the GNU GPL, and is programmed in Delphi1. To compile and edit it, you MUST have Delphi 1.0 installed, as it will not compile with any other biuld.
I have run the older version of Calmira (win95 look-alike) on a 386/16MB ram and it runs just as fast as progman.exe. I cant say that much about the XP version (havn’t run it) but I’m sure it’s comparable. Calmira doesn’t include all the extra stuff that XP does to make it slow. It’s just a progman replacement.
…what about DHCP and TCP/IP for windows 3.1 – is it possible to use an old computer as little internet-box? i remember we had PC’s with windows 3.1 at my university, when i was a student, long ago… are there any good resources in internet for this? i would love to run calmira on an old internet-workstation 🙂
I love Program Manager and File Manager. I frequently mourn the loss of minimizing to an icon as opposed to a shrunken window. Hell… I hate Explorer so much that I exclusively use CMD.EXE to do all my file manipuation; I still resent having to use it as my shell even though it doesn’t do file operations for me.
Now, if there was a shop like Calmira that did the opposite (making a PROGMAN.EXE clone) – they would have my undying gratitude and whatever monies it took to buy their product.
Simple. Can RH 7.3 install in under 125MB of HDD space, less than 10 MB RAM, and have a fully featured GUI while still performing fast, and having full office suites available, browsers compatible with HTML 4.0, and a wide selection of games and other software available? I think not.
Plus, the install time. Even with Damn Small Linux at only 50 MB, how long would that take to install on a 486DX/33 with no CD ROM drive, and doing the install with floppy disks? Propably several hours. To install DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 For Workgroups, it only takes 25 miniutes. Also, how many people know Unix commands as well as they know DOS commands? Not many.
Every OS has a place where it is most optimal. Linux on a 486DX/33 is not the best possible setup. While Windows 3.11 will run quite happily. Also after some tweaking, and patches, Windows 3.11 is very stable. I have only had Windows 3.11 crash on me twice in 10+ years of using it, and that was because KRNL386.EXE was corrupted, so I just expanded it off of the floppy disk set, and it was fully operational once again.
Interesting topic, good to see people are still working to support and extend old technologies like this.
Since Calmira is essentially a Window manager, could it be ported to run on Dosbox on Linux as a lightweight WM?
PS to Eugenia – an article on alt. shells for Windows 9x would be nice… since I last looked at Litestep it has changed beyond any sort of recognition, it’d be nice to know what else is new.
Yes, Download and install Trumpet Winsock 2.0, and Netscape 4.08. As long as you have a recognised modem, you will be online in no time. You can also use IE 5.01 16 bit, and it comes with its own dialer with TCP/IP stack. Unless you have somewhat modern hardware (Pentium 100 or better), I would reccomend uding an older version of IE such as 4.0, or 3.0. IE 3.0 is avvailable in a floppy installation set.
Try to run a graphical desktop with any kind of decent wordprocessor with acceptable MS word compatibility on a 486SX with 8M RAM and 25Mhz CPU, and a 256K video card… You will never be able to use openoffice even X, and abiword are dog slow, and abiword is simply not good enough… On the other hand win 3.1+ word 6.0 does the job quite well…
You can choose progman.exe as your shell by editing the registry.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftWindows NTCurrentVersionWinlogonShell “Explorer.exe”
Replace Explorer.exe with the Program Manager.
My first PC was a H-P Vectra that I purchased from the monthly MIT fleamarket they used to have in Cambridge, Mass. I paid $10 for it…it had a 386 at 33 MHz, but I added more RAM (like 30 or 40 meg worth), a CD-ROM drive, and an Acer S20 sound card. It was no screamer by today’s standards, but back in 1998, it was stout enough to run Win95 relatively well. In fact…it handled better than the 486s we had at our office (at that time, I worked for a division of Lucent Technologies).
This software sounds cool, but I have to agree with the post that mentioned a Linux/Unix distro being more suitable…but to each their own.
God…Win3.x TODAY? (Well…actually…a prison here in NYS uses 3.1 for the phone system’s programmer PC)
jm
You can find the tcp/ip stack for Windows for Workgroups at http://classic.tucows.com/preview/4771.html . Internet Explorer 5.01 can be found at http://classic.tucows.com/preview/4842.html .
Those two things and a RealTek card make for a novel internet terminal. Tucows Classic also has a lot of other stuff.
Under Win9x you can still run progman as your shell. I don’t know how well it would work under XP, but you can try it.
Under Win9x you can still run progman as your shell. I don’t know how well it would work under XP, but you can try it.
Oh, I know how to change my shell and whatnot – but, thank you for your responses. I do use XP, and unfortunately, the 32-bit revisions that Microsoft made (there is no such XP flavor of WINFILE.EXE [or at least I am not aware of it]) have some concessions in functionality.
Plus, (in pure asthetic terms) when I would use PROGMAN.EXE, it doesn’t even minimize the groups to an icon!
Can you tell I love OS X’s Finder/Dock and BeOS’s Deskbar/Tracker duality?
My RedHat 5.0 runs very smooth on a 486 SX with 8mb memory, oh its needs only 40MB diskspace.
example:
server: smb/nfs/http/smtp/pop/ftp/Gopher
workstation: Tex, LaTex, PDF. Postscript
full color 24-bits X envoirment, mpeg, avi, games, networking, realplayer, plotting, perl, python, etc…
I wonder if win 3.1 could do all of this? and do it for free
That’s awesome, completely useless, but awesome!
What is your boot time on that machine? Windows 3.1 takes 6 seconds once the POST screen is done.
>What is your boot time on that machine? Windows 3.1 takes 6 >seconds once the POST screen is done.
Does Win 3.1 not run on top of DOS you have to count that with the boot time i guess.
about 10-12 sec, and then about 4-5 second to get into X. So that is a total of 14 second ( i must admit i use 16mb and a 2mb videocard but the minimum psecs for full color X are 8MB and 256kb videocard)
I must have redhat 4.2 lying around here…i guess it can run on a 286, and has X.
Minimum specs for redhat 5.0 and 5.2 is an i386SX so a 486SX is really a nice machine to run it on.
5.2 already includes the Gimp and Netscape 4.5. It Rocks!!
It even has an Win95 Theme..
i think there is some special linux kernel, which runs on 286, but redhat 4.2 or any other standard linux will only run on 386 machines.
You are right.
Since it came out in 1991 and the 386 and 486 processors already existed at that time.
its hard to believe its about 12 years ago since i tried to complie my first kernel, i di not succeed and moved on with DOS.
I run wordperfect 5.1 for DOS and have to say, it’s the best wordprocessor ever. Wonder why it was retired such a long time ago.
It’s been a while for me, but I really did love it. It didn’t just work–it felt good. (And it’s sad to see word processors blow up to massive proportions when WP5 did so much in so few bytes.)
I could see the point of this in the pre-95 days, but I can’t say I really do these days. I’ve used Calmira, it’s not a bad app. But Windows 3.1 blows *so* hard, that I can’t say I see a purpose to writing a new shell for it.
When I was 13, my family gots its first new PC- a 486sx/25 with 4 MB of RAM and a 120 MB HD, running DOS 6 and Win 3.1. And it sucked, under Win 3.1 at least. Even when I added RAM later- bringing it first to 8 MB and then 24 MB- it still sucked. I stuck with DOS, though later switched to OS/2 and Linux. But on that machine, that lowly machine, even Win 95 ran a lot better than Windows 3.1, though I didn’t get around to installing it until 2001 or so. (heh)
So, when 95 is faster and 100x more stable, why use 3.1 with a 95-like shell? It’s not like 3.1 is faster and more robust, but just lacking in the looks department…
Hear hear. I still have my WP5.1 for DOS on my Windows partition (and boy is it fast on my “ancient” AMDk6-2 500!), but I don’t use it that much because of compatibility problems with other applications. Real shame, as it was (is!) such a powerful and completly professional program.
There used to be a version of WP available for Unix that would work under the terminal – much like WP5.1. I think it’s version 6. Does anyone know if it’s still available.
(OT) – I used to use the Calmira Win95 shell on Win3.11 for workgroups, and I really liked it! More so than when I upgraded to Win95 not long after (except that crashes were handled better in the 32 bit version). There was no noticeable slowdown (at least to me) on a 486 DX4-100. Powerful machine for it’s time, but slow enough to notice.
Best of lucj Calmira!
http://users.pandora.be/azone/calmira/calxp331.htm
A while back on Windows NT 3.51. Brian Johnson used to be the project admin and when he left I quit using this. i also see they quit distributing my NT 3 build, extra packages had to be created for it because NT 3.51 was a 32 bit system as well.
A lot of embedde developers use DOS with Windows 3.1 as a developer platform because as it was stated a lot of DOS apps are still useful and Word compatibility. Yes you can install DOS apps and Windows apps on Windows 3.1 and there is a Win32 subset and 32 bit subset available for it so you can run a few 32 bit apps. They all have their place. My days of Win 3.1 and 3.51 are over thankfully but they are still usable systems.
There have been several questions about the use of Win3.1 or Wfwg. If you want a cheap laptop (LT 100) you can get them and still find drivers for PCMCIA cards, modems, etc. PCMCIA to SCSI adapters are still available with devices and drivers available. Maybe you can find *nixes that will work with laptops, but it seems that even modern distros have problems with hardware compatibility.
My first Linux machine was a 486SX25 with 4 Mb RAM and a 256k video card. I ran X and had 40k of RAM left before swapping when using one rxvt.
I used rxvt, fvwm and did my “word processing” in emacs and LaTeX. Worked just fine for me.
BTW this was initially the (now defunct) SLS distribution with my own build of LaTeX.
“Does Win 3.1 not run on top of DOS you have to count that with the boot time i guess”
Yes, Windows 3.1x is dependant on DOS to run. Windows 3.1x is only a GUI, while DOS is the OS. The 6 seconds I stated was for DOS and windows to both boot. Discounting Windows, it only takes 4 seconds to get to a usable state. The reason why it even took this long was because the CD driver had to load up via config.sys and autoexec.bat. With no drivers, just booting to the command prompt, it takes less than 1 second for DOS to boot up. But it is not very usable in that state, with a 640KB memory limit.
Anyone tried to use Delphi 1.0 with latest version of Calmira?
I used old version which changed Delphi 1.0 interface. So I given up and go back to use progman.
Although it may come as a surprize to many, there are lots of older instruments (eg: older Atomic Force Microscopes) out there which interface with the PC (typically 386) using no less than 4 “full-sized” ISA slots, which are simply not available in any of the newer machines.
There are companies which offer migration solutions to pentium-based machines, but they typically set you back by $3000-5000! So there’s still some incentive to do a little bit of development for DOS 6/Win 3.11
I love Program Manager as well. That’s one of the reasons I moved to Linux so that I could use the ROX desktop environment which allows one to minimize icons to the desktop instead of the annoying, space-wasting taskbar.
sometimes when things are dead, their legs stick up and continue working like a zombie.. SUCH is the case with windows 3.1. you gotta take a pair of garden shears, and cut those legs off! then you gotta bury them with the rest of the thing cause its dead.. for good measure, you should also dump some holy water on the grave.
If you hate explorer, check out http://www.litepc.com/
This thing also changes your win3.1 in OS/2. Runs fine as it’s replacement as well. So if you are running VPC and have XP installed, then need tp hop to a win 3.1 proggy, the look stays the same…
Where can I find that ye-old version of delphi, anyone?
Why! Has anyone one commenting on this article ever heard of a Pentium 4 or Athlon XP? 1Ghz + CPU’s?
when i had a 3.1 machine i used to like the WPS Shell for Win 3.x someone at IBM wrote. later on i actually got an OS/2 box so it was pretty much obsolete then.
oooooohhhhhhhh
this good days are gone. i remember my win 3.1 in a 486 dx2 with 8 mb ram (and that was a ferrari!)
i remember my c64.
and nothing happened in this years. a lot of innovation has been these years, and i used my 486 for the same things as today: mail, web an im.
people should really consider how we spend money today on it.
c64! Oh my! I had a Vic-20 that had a cassette player attached. I can’t say those were the good old day. It took forever to load those little 8k programs. I remember need a 16k RAM cartrige so that I could play certain ‘memory hogging’ games.
Back when OS2 Warp was out, IBM had a program manager replacement called OS2 Warp Shell. I replaced progman with it and it worked pretty good.
I can’t believe there are people that say they love Progman. I guess if you have 99 people saying YES, one person will say NO just to be different.
Calmira’s great, it’s done for win 3.11 what should’ve been done in win 3.11 interface back in 1993. In five or so years, when anything before longhorn is going to be considered “ancient”, most of the computers and their systems in use right now are going to be considered crap, just like the win 3.11 computers are in these times. That system is total rubbish.
My first system was a TRS-80 Model I with the 16K. I needed more power, so I added the 48k expansion/interface. Then the “radical” mod from some forgotten TRS-80 mag to add upper and lower case. Had to piggyback a couple of chips and add a switch to enable such advanced features. Cassette loading was too slow, so the next upgrade was a Percom floppy disk drive interface attaced to a double sided 170k 5.25″ Percom drive. Life was good but needed more storage. Low and behold, Percom also made a “Data Doubler” interface which loaded me for bear at 340k per floppy. Of course, TRS-Dos sucked the big one so I upgraded to NEWDOS80. Learned to program in assembly on that little barn burner. Flat out amazing what you can accomplish in 48k of ram when that is all you have. Of course, it was a screamer, hell it came packed with a Zilog Z-80(If I remember) clocking at a blistering 1.77 Mhz. There were even mod articles talking about upping the clock speed to nearly 2 Mhz, but I was a newbie and afraid to kill my fully loaded $3300 dollar system! Kinda funny to contemplate a major mainboard mod to get .23 Mhz extra. *wipe eyes*
If you desperately need the Program Manager, File Manager etc on Win2K or XP, Program Manager comes with it, File Manager is included in NT4 if you can find a copy (might even be in a service pack), and runs perfectly on 2K/XP, including long file name support, and if you’re REALLY nostalgic, NT3.51’s old-style control panel still works a treat on Windows 2000, at least (I havent tried on XP). Ripping some old apps from NT4/3.51 you can even mostly get rid of the MMC (abomination that it is). And if you own a legal copy of 2K or XP it is, I’m pretty sure, legal to pull these old apps for this (theres a bit in the license agreement about previous versions of the software).
my first computer was an 286 with dos 4.01 lotus 123 and wp with dbase IV in it. And it was just great.