does anybody know where i can download windows 3.1

[Iron Woode]

I seem to remember a website that listed virtually all version of windows. The oldest was 1.1. You could actually download the OS's from it too.

Appearently some guy installed just about every OS ever made on one PC.

 

[LuNoTiCK]

What are you doing with that computer? You should just throw it out.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
I seem to remember a website that listed virtually all version of windows. The oldest was 1.1. You could actually download the OS's from it too.

Appearently some guy installed just about every OS ever made on one PC.

Yeah. 1.1 takes some pretty harsh hacking to make work on a PS/2 + PCI system, though.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Wow. Even on a 386DX40, if you have at least 16MB of RAM, run Win95 or something.

have you ever tried to run Windows 95 on a 386DX40?

Yes, I used to have it, and then OSR2, installed on one. It was pretty brutal trying to run it on a system with only 5MB of RAM though. With 16MB (or more), it was halfway decent for simple things. CPU is less of a problem than RAM or disk, at least for the OS itself. Apps are a different story, few current Win32 apps will run efficiently, or even at all, on a 386.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: aircooled
has anyone run win3.1 on a P4 (or AMD equivalent)?

I've done it before. Everything pretty much loaded instantly. No driver support though.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
I seem to remember a website that listed virtually all version of windows. The oldest was 1.1. You could actually download the OS's from it too.

Appearently some guy installed just about every OS ever made on one PC.

Yeah. 1.1 takes some pretty harsh hacking to make work on a PS/2 + PCI system, though.

OMG I found the website.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Woah, cool

 

[vegetation]

I tried win95 on a 386sx-25 with 4mb (laptop too) and it was very painful. Win 3.1 ran decently enough though.

 

[Conky]

Wow, what a waste of time and electricity. :roll:

 

[yoda291]

you should try running os2

 

[jiwq]

I miss hearing the bleepy sounds coming from the MFM hd's as win 3.1 loads.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: yoda291
you should try running os2

I've got a brand-new full copy of OS/2 3.0, if anyone needs one. I never was able to get it to install sucessfully onto anything. Maybe that's why it never gained any market-share. Kind of hard to use and promote an OS, when it won't even install on various common hardware. (All of which had zero issues with any version of DOS/Windows.)

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
oh dear lord PIRACY, eh?

Not if he still has the license for it.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: TheShiz
holy cow why would you ever want to even contemplate messing with win 3.1 when you could probably piece together a junky computer that could at least run '98 for around a hundred dollars, or maybe less.

Many many years ago I upgraded a drive and some ram for a friend's family, and they prefered to have Win3.1 put back on instead of Win95. And to tell you the truth, Win3.1 ran pretty well - better on 32mb of ram than Win95 did.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: arcenite

Originally posted by: venk
This isn't a Warez forum!

I'm not sure Win 3.1 is considered Warez

You people saying getting Windows 3.1 is piracy are retarded. Starting in 2002, Microsoft was allowing Windows 95 to be given away for free. At least the company I worked for at the time could. We loaded it on old computers that were too slow for us to use anymore and gave them away to schools and churches and nonprofits that needed them.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Brazen
You people saying getting Windows 3.1 is piracy are retarded. Starting in 2002, Microsoft was allowing Windows 95 to be given away for free. At least the company I worked for at the time could. We loaded it on old computers that were too slow for us to use anymore and gave them away to schools and churches and nonprofits that needed them.

I'm curious to learn more about that, because MS was suing non-profits up until recently for doing just that, with donated computers that the organization recieved that had a version of Windows pre-installed, but lacked 100% of the "proper documentation" that the computer originally came with.

What your org was doing, was flat-out copyright infringement, it sounds like, rather than just a grey area of possibly lacking proper documentation to prove authenticity.

MS regularly contacts web sites even still, in order to force them to take things like MS-DOS bootdisks off of the web.