1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Windows XP vs. Windows 3.1

Discussion in 'Entertainment and Technology' started by Miaplacidus, Nov 17, 2007.

  1. Miaplacidus

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Montevideo, Uruguay / Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I've been testing Windows 3.1 extensively (yes, I was bored). So far, I think I can conclude that Windows 3.1 does the same as Windows XP. One would suppose that 3.1 is less mature and less stable, but it only crashed once in two weeks due to a conflict between MS-DOS' EMM386 memory manager and the Win32 compatibility layer Win32s. I could do everything I do with XP (even browsing the Internet to some extent) with Windows 3.1...

    Great, huh?
     
  2. CrimsonThunder

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,467
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South Australian!
    Can you play F.E.A.R. on 3.1?


    MYTH... BUSTED!
     
  3. Miaplacidus

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Montevideo, Uruguay / Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I never play games. I said that it could do anything *I* need it to do.
     
  4. CrimsonThunder

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,467
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South Australian!
    You also said.

     
  5. Miaplacidus

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Montevideo, Uruguay / Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Both Windows 3.1 and XP provide an operating environment, an API, processor scheduling and memory management for programs to run.
     
  6. Urman

    Urman Guest

    You mean service pack 3?
     
  7. Miaplacidus

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Montevideo, Uruguay / Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
  8. Paul_UK

    Paul_UK Guest

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    6,885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    The point is that for many general office and business purposes Windows 3.1 or another older version of Windows with the software from that era will generally do just as well as a current version of Windows with current software.

    Windows 3.1 is from the very early days of the Internet, so internet software that can run on it would be a bit limited. Using something like the Netscape browser and Eudora for email though, and it will still do surprisingly well. The office applications (Word, Excel etc) of that era already covered all the stuff that the majority of users would do with that sort of software (it is generally reckoned that 90% of users only use 10% of the features of software).

    Games and other high-end stuff like video editing are another matter though. There is no way an operating system intended for 386 processors could support something like that.

    It is interesting to play with older operating systems. Although they may feel a bit limited now, remember that in their day people were using them in their daily work just like they are now using XP or Vista. They were serious operating systems based on the available hardware and did the job as well as current operating systems on current hardware.

    Nobody is seriously suggesting that you use Windows 3.1 now. Unless your computing needs are typical of users in the early 90s you would find Windows 3.1 and its applications to be too limited.

    For me I think the "sweet spot" when it all came together with a reliable and stable operating system (without excessive bloated junk) and applications that did everything we need and work well was Windows 2000 (with Service Pack 4) and Office 2000. A lot of industrial systems still use Windows 2000, and the company I used to work for specified Windows 2000 on all the PCs in the equipment we sold because of its reliability and stability.
     
  9. Steam Giant

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northeastern Pennsylvania, USA
    Agreed. Fred and I had a discussion about this, actually. I find Windows 2000 (SP4) to be the best version of Windows for what I use it for (and I do play games!). It networks beautifully, and if you're stepping down from, say, XP to Win2k, you'll find that a lot of your favorite XP features originated from Win2k. All this, without the memory-heavy bells and whistles that current OS's seem to find necessary.

    I was using Win2k SP4 until my prior computer broke. I'm using a work computer now, which has to be XP SP1 for my work program to function, but as soon as I get up the funds to build my own PC again, you can bet that I'll be outfitting that powerhouse with Win2k SP4!

    Edit: sorry to be off topic. My experience with Win 3.1 is rather limited, heh. Our computers in my elementary school had it, that's more or less all I know about it.
     
  10. Miaplacidus

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Montevideo, Uruguay / Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Well, Windows 3.1 is fine for everything but multimedia and gaming. For multimedia, Windows 2000 works... and for gaming, well, get a console. LOL