people still use windows 3.1 or 3.11?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

August 11th, 2002, 04:43 AM
Vernon Frazee

Microsoft KB: OSR2 Cannot Dual-Boot Between Windows 3.x and Windows 95

Quote:

Windows 3.x was designed to use the FAT12 and FAT16 file system, and could potentially damage a FAT32 volume.

Microsoft KB: Common Questions About the FAT32 File System

Quote:

Q. I have a dual-boot computer, can I convert to FAT32?

A. If you convert your hard drive to FAT32 using Drive Converter, you can no longer use dual boot to run earlier versions of Windows (Windows 95 version 4.00.950, Microsoft Windows NT 3.x, Microsoft Windows NT 4.0, and Microsoft Windows 3.x). However, if you are on a network, earlier versions of Windows can still gain access to your FAT32 hard drive using the network.

Microsoft Windows Platform Development: FAT32 on Preinstalled Systems

Quote:

MS-DOS® APIs that rely on intimate knowledge of the file system layout generally fail on FAT32 drives. For example, GetDPB (Int 21h, function 32h), Int 25/26h Absolute Disk Read/Write, and most of the Int 21h, function 440Dh IOCTLs will fail on FAT32 drives.
August 11th, 2002, 04:59 AM
ylen13

I just remmber something,one of the computers that im currently using for bussiness that used to be 386 before i upgrade,an old hardrive which i beleive has windows 3.1 installed on it,Its like 2g computer.As soon as i build a new system,which should be very soon i will connect that old harddrive and see what kind of probrams i still have on it.It should be interesting.
August 11th, 2002, 09:32 AM
tiberiuscan

Make no mistake. Win 3.x is a DOS shell and should be treated as thoug it was DOS. (Someone mentioned 12 and 16 bit FAT).
It's interesting to be sure because it was Microsofts first attempt at a GUI. BTW I have software (freeware) that makes Win 3.1 work and act like it's Win 95.
The beauty of Win 3.x is it could be put on such tiny hard drives. (Compared to todays) and such old machines.
Win 3.11 for example (which I still have on it's original 8 floppy set) required a 386SX DOS 3.3 or later, 3MB RAM (sigh) and 10.5 MB of hard drive space. Verison 3.11 was fully networkable and internet ready. (Those wre the days).
A couple of years ago I took a night course in advance troubleshooting taught by a friend of mine. Out of 35 students (many over 30) only the two of us even heard of DOS. Let alone Windows 3.x
Todays kids never heard of anything before Win 95. Soon we'll be saying "When I was your age we didn't have a graphic user interface. Dagnabit
August 11th, 2002, 01:24 PM
Eeyore

ylen13, see Windows 3.1/3.11 Menu. Windows 3.1 takes about 7 to 12 mb of disk space. Among the other things that link lists is Ramdrive. This you can use on your computer without modifying it. The Windows can really run fast as well.
------------------
My
Two Cents
Dennis
Visit Politalk

NOTE: Link Corrected!
August 11th, 2002, 01:48 PM
ylen13

Quote:

Originally posted by Eeyore
ylen13, see Windows 3.1/3.11 Menu. Windows 3.1 takes about 7 to 12 mb of disk space. Among the other things that link lists is Ramdrive. This you can use on your computer without modifying it. The Windows can really run fast as well.
------------------
My
Two Cents
Dennis
Visit Politalk

thanks for the link,but its dead,also their is no gurantee that i will be able to find the disk,so i may have no way of installing it on my current comp
August 11th, 2002, 03:07 PM
Vernon Frazee

Try this link: http://www.geocities.com/politalk/win31/index.html

Also, if you're interested, you can still pick up Windows 3.1x on ebay.com for a few bucks: http://search.ebay.com/search/search...y=windows+3.11
August 11th, 2002, 03:24 PM
ylen13

Quote:

Originally posted by Vernon Frazee
Try this link: http://www.geocities.com/politalk/win31/index.html

Also, if you're interested, you can still pick up Windows 3.1x on ebay.com for a few bucks: http://search.ebay.com/search/search...y=windows+3.11

thanks for the link,as for 3.11 i will fast see if i still have it on a hard drive in my old comp that im using for bussiness,if not i may pick it up on ebay.
August 11th, 2002, 04:06 PM
LotusAstra

Hi, also while on the subject of RamDrive OS's for those interested u can also run Win95 from a RamDrive too, HERES the link... a while ago now i tried it with both Win 3.1 & 95 and both worked out cool...

Shame the same can't be said for Win98... HERES another link that says it can be done, but i found it to be very unstable (BSOD's all the time) when i got it going and its machine specific too (contrary to what it says), so pretty useless to me... but u may enjoy the challenge, i think the prob lies in the fact that it was written a long time ago before we had common RAM sizes like 256 & 512MB's etc... i think if it was rewritten to make it run completly from RAM (rather than half RAM & half CD) then all would work fine...

Its a pitty one cant ghost to a RAM-Drive (or is there a way? maybe pkzip or summut would work?) or it would be so easy and Win98 would run ultra fast and be 100% secure from unwanted modifications :)

Just thought i'd share, Regards :)
August 11th, 2002, 07:58 PM
ylen13

found the disk and got it installed,now got alittle problem,it seems that the boot disk that im using to get in to the msdos is wrong version,is says i need the version that win31 was written,anyone know were i can get one?Looked at www.bootdisk.com but wasn't sure which of one of this bootdisk will work. Windows didn't exactly installed where i told it to iinstall but it's okay.

One little funny thing,after it finish searching for previos installed in windows,it told me that it found another windows,which is win2k and it sudgest that i upgrade win3.1 over win2k :)
August 11th, 2002, 09:17 PM
Eeyore

ylen13, you have to boot with DOS version 6.22 or older to run Windows 3.x. You can go through the entire install process and things will seem to be going fine until you try to start Windows after the install is complete. You might even get it to work under Windows 95a boot files.

Quote:

it told me that it found another windows,which is win2k and it sudgest that i upgrade win3.1 over win2k

Since Windows 3.x knows nothing of these, it may have thought them defective. If they were on a FAT 32 partition, it should not have found them at all. That would indicate that you booted with Windows 95b or later files.

LotusAstra, using lfnbk.exe which can be found on Windows CDROMS, (\tools\reskit\file\lfnback\ on a Windows 98 CD) you can convert long filenames so they can be PKZIPPED at DOS. When you set this up, they are added when Windows starts.

I ran Windows 98FE on a RAMDISK. It loaded from a Iomega ZIP Disk. While it took a while to unzip the files, when it started, it took only a second or 2 to start. I have never experimented to see how it worked as I don't have that kind of memory (yet). But we tried it on my kids computer with 256mb of ram.

I will have to experiment with that other method of running Windows 98 from a CD. Thanks for that link.

Vernon, thanks for finding and correcting my link error. Just one little character can make or break you.

------------------
My
Two Cents
Dennis
Visit Politalk
August 13th, 2002, 02:26 AM
Flibbertigibbet

As for using File Manager and Program Manager, I just realized that I hadn't tried using these in XP. Program Manager is still there, but *sniff* File Manager isn't. I miss the li'l guy...

Back when I was using Win 98, I would occasionally use File Manager because it was able to do something that Explorer wasn't. Either that or it was just easier. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it was definitely simpler.

I just remembered what it was! File associations. They were definitely easier with Winfile.exe. Ah well...
August 13th, 2002, 02:43 AM
LotusAstra

Thx Eeyore for that info and sorry for my slow reply (dunno how i missed the notification, but i just got one from Flibbertigibbet, so i'm here now :D)

That sounds quite usefull, it'll be sumut i'll definatly have a look into.

Thx again, much appreciated.

Regards :)
August 13th, 2002, 08:35 AM
tiberiuscan

Re. Boot Disk Win 3.11 can use Dos 3.3 or later but Dos 6.0 or later is recomended.
I have also successfully installed using PS DOS 7

re. File manager Windows explorer is as close as we're going to get.
August 13th, 2002, 11:00 AM
Webshark2000

Older OS's

I think a lot more people are using older OS's than most of us realize. I worked for a computer tech company for a while and used to make house calls to upgrade or help people with computer problems. You'd be suprised how many were still using Windows 3.1 or even Dos. Many people (especially older people) have gotten used to their computer and they do all they need for them, so there's no reason for them to keep up with the times and spend money on computers they won't use.
For example, I started out on Macs many years ago because when I was going to High School that was the computer of choice for education. I strictly use PCs now, but I gave my old PowerPC Mac Clone to my grandmother who wants nothing more than to get on the internet and have a word processor. Even though it's outdated even for a Mac (Mac OS 7.1, 200 Mhz, 2 Gig HD) it's plenty enough for her to use. And even though Mac OS's have always been known as the "user friendly" OS, it's still challenging for her to learn.
August 13th, 2002, 11:35 AM
tiberiuscan

Re: Older OS's

Quote:

Originally posted by Webshark2000
I think a lot more people are using older OS's than most of us realize. I worked for a computer tech company for a while and used to make house calls to upgrade or help people with computer problems. You'd be suprised how many were still using Windows 3.1 or even Dos. Many people (especially older people) have gotten used to their computer and they do all they need for them, so there's no reason for them to keep up with the times and spend money on computers they won't use.
For example, I started out on Macs many years ago because when I was going to High School that was the computer of choice for education. I strictly use PCs now, but I gave my old PowerPC Mac Clone to my grandmother who wants nothing more than to get on the internet and have a word processor. Even though it's outdated even for a Mac (Mac OS 7.1, 200 Mhz, 2 Gig HD) it's plenty enough for her to use. And even though Mac OS's have always been known as the "user friendly" OS, it's still challenging for her to learn.

Hi webshark I was talking to a computer consultant just yesterday and he told me one of the major petro-chemical industries in town had only recently went from a mixed 3.11 and win 95 environment to W2k.
Again as I've stated before there is little or no DOS support in W2K or XP for many programs that are and have been used for over a decade.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page