On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:48:17 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:12:32 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Yet you don't mind learning a new OS every time Bill Gates wants a new
car. The hardware is the easy part


Sure I mind but some of the new hardware and software doesn't play
well with Win 3.1

The main limitation with W3.1 is in graphics and full motion video.
DOS (the engine under W3 and lower) does a good job with music,
pictures and excels with text based applications. There are DOS tools
that handle text far better than any windows program in a much tighter
package.
I still use "CE3", a subset of the IBM E editor, when I want to select
data and manipulate it from HTML tables or anything else I can paste
from a windows file.

===

I'd argue that the main limitation with Win 3.1 was the lack of
working memory, and I/O bandwidth. I used to get frequent memory
crashes back in the day if I tried to have more than a couple of
windows open at the same time that I was browsing the web with
Netscape. Windows 98 and Win NT fixed some of that but it really
wasn't until Win 7 that things really stabilized. I push my machines
fairly hard with a number of different apps running more or less
continuously. I was never able to do that reliably prior to Win 7.

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:24:59 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:48:17 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:12:32 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Yet you don't mind learning a new OS every time Bill Gates wants a new
car. The hardware is the easy part


Sure I mind but some of the new hardware and software doesn't play
well with Win 3.1

The main limitation with W3.1 is in graphics and full motion video.
DOS (the engine under W3 and lower) does a good job with music,
pictures and excels with text based applications. There are DOS tools
that handle text far better than any windows program in a much tighter
package.
I still use "CE3", a subset of the IBM E editor, when I want to select
data and manipulate it from HTML tables or anything else I can paste
from a windows file.

===

I'd argue that the main limitation with Win 3.1 was the lack of
working memory, and I/O bandwidth. I used to get frequent memory
crashes back in the day if I tried to have more than a couple of
windows open at the same time that I was browsing the web with
Netscape. Windows 98 and Win NT fixed some of that but it really
wasn't until Win 7 that things really stabilized. I push my machines
fairly hard with a number of different apps running more or less
continuously. I was never able to do that reliably prior to Win 7.

I never really used W3.1 that much. I was a DOS guy and there were
software work arounds that got past Bill Gates thinking 640K was
enough for anyone. DOS dBase IV was smart enough to use all the memory
you could throw at it. I found the diminishing returns came at around
2 meg. I had 6.5m on my AT machine and I kept 4m in a Ram Drive. If I
was in a hurry, I loaded the whole directory, program, data etc to the
ram drive and executed it there. dBase really screams if it is all in
RAM, even on an old 8 mz 286.

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Woodiy%20AT.jpg

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:52:34 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:24:59 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:48:17 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:12:32 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Yet you don't mind learning a new OS every time Bill Gates wants a new
car. The hardware is the easy part


Sure I mind but some of the new hardware and software doesn't play
well with Win 3.1

The main limitation with W3.1 is in graphics and full motion video.
DOS (the engine under W3 and lower) does a good job with music,
pictures and excels with text based applications. There are DOS tools
that handle text far better than any windows program in a much tighter
package.
I still use "CE3", a subset of the IBM E editor, when I want to select
data and manipulate it from HTML tables or anything else I can paste
from a windows file.

===

I'd argue that the main limitation with Win 3.1 was the lack of
working memory, and I/O bandwidth. I used to get frequent memory
crashes back in the day if I tried to have more than a couple of
windows open at the same time that I was browsing the web with
Netscape. Windows 98 and Win NT fixed some of that but it really
wasn't until Win 7 that things really stabilized. I push my machines
fairly hard with a number of different apps running more or less
continuously. I was never able to do that reliably prior to Win 7.

I never really used W3.1 that much. I was a DOS guy and there were
software work arounds that got past Bill Gates thinking 640K was
enough for anyone. DOS dBase IV was smart enough to use all the memory
you could throw at it. I found the diminishing returns came at around
2 meg. I had 6.5m on my AT machine and I kept 4m in a Ram Drive. If I
was in a hurry, I loaded the whole directory, program, data etc to the
ram drive and executed it there. dBase really screams if it is all in
RAM, even on an old 8 mz 286.

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Woodiy%20AT.jpg

I would have been happy if they'd stuck with Win 3.1 for Workgroups forever. I loved it.

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:23:12 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:


I would have been happy if they'd stuck with Win 3.1 for Workgroups forever. I loved it.

W/95 was the release that brought LAN management to the masses. That
replaced W3.11 WFWG. I admit it was easier to set up a network. That
also morphed to NT which has it's share of fans. W/98 was really the
bug fix as much as anything and SE made it very solid if you had all
of the patches. Most of the crashes were actually caused by things you
loaded on top of SE. Memory management has always been shaky with MS
and they let too many people have the keys to the kingdom. They kept
stepping on each other's patch.
XP was supposed to fix that and it actually works a whole lot better.
The best I can figure 7 was supposed to address security holes in WiFi
(I know networking got more cumbersome). W/8 added tablet support and
10 is aimed at taking MS to a subscription model according to the
chatter I hear.