'Completely useless' Windows 3.1 hits Google's Android First, it was Windows Vista on the iPhone. Now, an even earlier Microsoft creation has been updated for the smartphone set. Windows 3.1 has been ported to Google's Linux-based Android phone platform by developer Shawn McHenry using the DOSBox emulator. DOSBox is usually used to run old MS-DOS games for Intel x86 PCs that can' …
???
"Windows 3.1 added support for long file names, virtual memory, and the ability to share devices."
-- Long file names. Nope.
-- Virtual memory, yes, but not new in this version.
-- "share devices"? Can't agree or disagree, as I don't understand what that's supposed to mean.
"Windows 3.1 added support for long file names"
Erm, they arrived a little bit later for mass consumption. Windows 95 introduced long file names to the general public, but many in the industry were already using long file names with Windows NT 3.5, which was visually half-way between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95.
I found this open-source full-emulation package -- including ROM emulation, iirc -- which runs MacOS 1.5 or something like that, in a disk image on the desktop under OSX. I actually got MacOS 1.5 -- what I got back when I bought my 512K -- to run in the original video space as the old Mac internal monitor in a window inside Tiger on a G4 iBook... similar to when you run OS9 in a window inside OSX when you still need to crack open old files with "legacy" software.
Futzed around with MacPaint. Sweet, just as I remembered it. Then came the true test, digging out the old GridWars master disk, firing up the old G3 to use its floppy drive, then copying it over the wifi onto the iBook. I'll be goddamned if it didn't run GridWars in emulation as well.
Trouble was, it ran a little too well... it ran as fast as the PPC would allow, which was way too blindingly fast -- remember, it's MacOS 1.5 -- to properly emulate the true 512K Mac Experience.
"Windows 3.1 added support for long file names, ..."
No it didn't.
Windows 3.1 ran on top of dos 6.22 (I think), which was strictly 8.3.
Long file names didn't come in until windows came in 32bit flavours, along with the FAT32 filesystem.
And yes, I still support one customer who's running windows 3.11
Given the mists of time may have dimmed my recollections but I am almost certain that long file name support didn't happen until Windows 95 and the introduction of FAT32. Who needs more than 8 characters anyway..... ;o)
As for Win 3.1 being 'almost useless' it did a fairly fine job in the office productivity stakes and Word 2.0/AmiPro 3.0/WordPerfect 6.0 ran just as fast back (possibly faster) then than the current crop of bloatware on what now appears truly meager system resources. I would have thought that was the ideal to run on a small and light hand set!?
"DOSBox is usually used to run old MS-DOS games for Intel x86 PCs that can't run modern operating systems such as Window XP, Vista, Linux, or FreeBSD."
Not quite. DOSBox is used to play old MS-DOS games ON modern operating systems. Those old games expect to have things like direct access to old Soundblaster hardware complete with IRQs. A modern OS can't provide that, so DOSBox emulates it.
Long filenames on UNIX appeared in the Berkeley Fast Filesystem in BSD 4.2 around 1983. In AT&T releases up to SVR3, you still had the original limits of 14 characters overall, including dots or other characters (UNIX does not and never had the concept of a three character extension).
Around 1987, when SVR4 (and soon after, OSF/1) appeared, pretty much all UNIX vendors either had, or had plans to drop the original Version 7 derived version of UFS for one based on BSD FFS.
So yes. UNIX had it before Win95 AND OS/2.
...and I will have my Windows For Workgroups.
Yes, you may have fancy apps for everything including best tips for a good bum scratch and GPS directions to the nearest Kosher Thai restaurant. But do you have XCom, Transport Tycoon and Theme Hospital?
I suddenly feel all nostalgic for MS-DOS, and feel the urge to go home and dig out my old 133MHz Pentium (now with MMX technology!!) from the attic, and fire up the old bird.
On a 133? I'm pretty sure the 166 was the slowest clockspeed to get MMX, which I only know because a 166 with MMX was my first desktop PC and I spent months researching it in Computer Shopper and the like (no internet at the time, of course).
Yeah, I know, damn kids and our music, get off your lawn, etc. :-)
I'd say it was 3.0 that set the stage for world domination, not 3.1. Folklore tells that it was the warm reception given to 3.0 (and its virtual DOS boxes) that persuaded Young Mr Gates that he could tell IBM where to stick the troubled OS/2 2.x development and go it alone.
3.0 was also the last release where programmers were trusted to write working software. For 3.1, MS added a parameter checking layer on top of the kernel, gdi and user libraries, and compatibility hacks to ensure that buggy apps kept on working even when they shouldn't. As a result, 3.1 was just about usable for software development, whereas 3.0 had required a reboot every few hours or so.
But even so, it was 3.0 that wowed the punters. Just shows you how stupid punters are.
God how I miss it!
I'd love to see a screen shot of the old Control Panel...
Oh, and Windows 3.1 (just to pile it on) was 8.3 for file names, 8 or less characters for directories.
Now if this guy could show how he edited the Win.ini and Config.sys. etc., to actually get it to work, that would just bring back old times.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
