Standard or V86 Mode?
As the standard mode is not impressive at all. If it is standard mode then whippy shit it is a VCPI DOS Client.
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.
To your list of meritorious Win3.1 apps, let me add Improv 2.0 (never, alas, really finished), Lotus 1-2-3 release 5 (the single best spreadsheet program), and FontMonster. Also WordPerfect 5.1, the best word processor ever written.
However, these will all run under Win95 & Win98, which are far more stable OSes than Win 3.1. When I was using Win3.1, I'd have to shut it down and reboot two or three times most workdays because the GUI heap would become corrupted. I learned that the instant I saw *any* "funny" on the display, to save my work and reboot.
If you want to run these inside Linux, your best bet is probably to use Virtual Box, as Wine is glitchy in its handling of older Windows software.
DOSBox is usually used to run DOS programs on PCs that _are_ running more modern OSes like Windows 7 or Linux. It's not used because those PCs can't run newer OSes. It's because the old DOS games can't run on the newer PCs with more modern OSes.
Perhaps the line:
"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."
Was meant to be written as:
"DOSBox is usually used to run old MS-DOS games that can't run on modern Intel x86 PC operating systems such as Window XP, Vista, Windows 7, Linux, or FreeBSD."
Well, Windows 3.1 did come with long file names support, but only in File Manager. The reason being workgroup/network support. You could trick File Manager into supporting long file names locally by installing LFN support TSRs into DOS and couple it with a custom command intepreter like 4DOS, but no, it doesn't do LFN out of the box locally, because DOS doesn't.
..."It's completely useless, but really damn cool"
Err no, it's not cool.
Naked Volleyball with a bunch of models, that's cool.
Surfing the waves in the Bahama's or the Artic, that's cool.
BASE jumping blindfolded, that's cool.
Porting Windows 3.1 onto a phone, trust me that ain't cool.
I still have a MSDOS v5.0 / Windows 3.11 dual booting with Kubuntu on an AMD 64. I use the Windows occassionally as I have an old but fast scanner with drivers only for Windows 3.x or Win95. Win 95 will not work on the AMD 64, but DOS / Win 3.x are fine.
I've even tried playing the freebee DOS game where two gorillas throw exploding bananas at eachother, but each banana throw takes spends about 15 minutes in the air and when it explodes DOS crashes.
I've been running Windows 3.1 on DOSBox on my FreeBSD box for ages, just for nostalgia's sake (not because it's "really damn cool"). How is this any different? Sorry but I don't see how this is newsworthy.
Oh and as others have mentioned, Windows 3.1 did *not* have long file name support out of the box.