This OS was around before I got involved with computers. Everyone I know said that win 3.1 sucked. Could someone help me? Thanks.
What was so wrong with windows 3.11?
- Thread starter KennyH
- Start date
#1 issue
Horrendous networking available only in the "workgroup" version, Windows 3.11.
Horrendous networking available only in the "workgroup" version, Windows 3.11.
It was just a shell over Dos 6.22 or whatever DOS you used. In a way so is Win 95 but 95 had a lot more 32-Bit code. Networking like was already stated was not very good and neither was multitasking. 3.11 to me was a bit better than 3.1 in networking but still not a very good GUI but one thing for sure it is it brought the GUI to the PC.
Adul
Elite Member
it was buggy, unstable with anything that pushed it to hard, netowrking was a joke, and memory management was another joke.
My main memory of 3.11 and of Windows for Workgroups is of spending hours and hours with QEMM and a couple of other memory management programs juggling the order in which you loaded things and all sorts of tricks to move them to high memory to maximize what was left available in conventional memory. Just as people now brag about their tweaks to overclock then people bragged about squeezing another couple of K out of conventional memory. Lots of wasted effort -- but Windows for Workgroups wasn't bad. I stayed with it long after Windows 95 was available simply because I had it working so well I didn't want to chance a change.
Also Win 3.x was notorious for its inability to render speedy graphics. The WinG api helped but it still sucked vs. what you could do in DOS.
Actuall Windows 3.11 for work groups isn't that bad.. if you think that is bad, how about Windows 2.0? that's even worse. But mainly Win3.1 lacked of good memory management, and lack of preemptive multitasking. and most important, lack of GAMES 
(most of the game is still DOS based, which is also one reason that I didn't go into Win95 that fast, until there's actually games for them...)
(most of the game is still DOS based, which is also one reason that I didn't go into Win95 that fast, until there's actually games for them...)Yeah, but you guys are forgeting about the good things of 3.11. Like 8MB of memory was plenty enough. You really had to learn something if you wanted to connect to the internet, at least how to configure your winsock. And File Manger never asked you if you wanted to search for your files in another computer half way around the world.
But the best thing in W3.11 was that you could really trust it as your best friend, it never did weird things behind your back. Besides crashing of course. I miss DOS.
But the best thing in W3.11 was that you could really trust it as your best friend, it never did weird things behind your back. Besides crashing of course. I miss DOS.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,000
- 126
If you want to see what's wrong with Windows 3.11, try using Mac OS. On a technical level they are both equivalent and both dinosaur operating systems. Windows 3.11 was simply running on top of DOS and had the usual characteristics of a non-modern OS (static memory allocation, co-operative multitasking, no real caching etc).
Windows 9x/ME on the other hand is a fully modern OS which has been built from ground-up and does not run on top of DOS.
Windows 9x/ME on the other hand is a fully modern OS which has been built from ground-up and does not run on top of DOS.
I thought win9x was built on top of dos, but does not sit on top dos...
The NT OSs were built from the ground up.
The NT OSs were built from the ground up.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,000
- 126
I thought win9x was built on top of dos, but does not sit on top dos...
Windows 9x/ME uses the DOS bootstrap loader and a few other files for compatbility purposes. But it's standing on its own two feet. And Windows ME is using even less DOS files than Windows 95/98 is using.
Windows 9x/ME uses the DOS bootstrap loader and a few other files for compatbility purposes. But it's standing on its own two feet. And Windows ME is using even less DOS files than Windows 95/98 is using.
Windows 3.1 and stable? Not in the same sentence surely?
It was the crapest OS I have ever used. I actually prefered using Acorn's Risc OS on the Risc PC's I used to have at college then that crap.
The only decent thing was that the workgroup version was a *bit* better.
It was called 3.1 because you had to reboot it 3 times every 1 hour to get the damn thing to do anything.
It was the crapest OS I have ever used. I actually prefered using Acorn's Risc OS on the Risc PC's I used to have at college then that crap.
The only decent thing was that the workgroup version was a *bit* better.
It was called 3.1 because you had to reboot it 3 times every 1 hour to get the damn thing to do anything.
win 3.11 wasnt that bad, especially the work group version. the GUI was pretty crappy looking, the original win95 really wasnt that much better. win95 brought us only a couple things. it brought plug and play software support, better networking, and took us away from the dos 640 k limit. also it let you run dos stuff in windows more easily. win3.11 wasnt bad, win 3.0 was a lot worse.
Yes, I know win9x uses dos to boot, but is win9x really built from the ground up? I thought they used dos code as a reference/starting point, and built upon that...where as NT was built from scratch.
Adul
Elite Member
I say we all go back to DOS and dial into a BBS using Telix and post on Echo mail with our 2400 baud modems and listen to .MOD files instead of MP3's and pull out those boot disks so that we can free up more conventional memory so that we can play Doom over the phoneline with our neighbor across the street that you copied the game from that he downloaded off a warez BBS. Now those were the days where you really had to learn something to get something done... hehehe... But since this is a topic about Win3.x... I thought it stunk. Never really used it actually. Everything I needed to do I was able to do in DOS.
The original question "What was so wrong with windows 3.11" isn't
all that interesting (it's the classic "slow lob over home plate".
The more interesting question is: "When you compare Windows 3.11
to the Mac OS that was available at the same time, how is
it possible that Apple failed to WIPE OUT Microsoft?"
(Lots of good answers to that one, of course, but it's still
a more interesting example of what not to do...)
Kwad
all that interesting (it's the classic "slow lob over home plate"
.The more interesting question is: "When you compare Windows 3.11
to the Mac OS that was available at the same time, how is
it possible that Apple failed to WIPE OUT Microsoft?"
(Lots of good answers to that one, of course, but it's still
a more interesting example of what not to do...)
Kwad
Windows 3.11
Cons-
poor resource management (memory, gdi , etc)
no premptive multitasking
poor game support
Pros
ran well with 8MB RAM
small install size (<30MB)
big improvement over dos for many things
an install could be easily moved from one machine to another since the OS wasn't as bound to the hardware as tightly as (95/98/NT) are.
These are just some things off the top of my head. Often time makes it difficult to put things in perspective. When I was using WFW311 i liked it well enoough and postponed switching to WIN95 for quite a while (and ran a quad boot WFW311 / OS2 / WIN95 / linux system for about a year after that (until early 97). From todays standpoint it sucked. As with other advances, you gain stuff you give stuff up. Things I miss about winfw311: being able to easily move it from one machine to another (no PNP), good performace with older hardware (relatively), ease of installation, etc. Things that most impressed me about win95 - better multitasking, better memory mangement, more gdi resources (no more black icons cause the machine ran out) built in tcp/ip (trumpet sucked), long filesnames.
Overall we have come a long way, but there is still a long way to go.
Chris
Cons-
poor resource management (memory, gdi , etc)
no premptive multitasking
poor game support
Pros
ran well with 8MB RAM
small install size (<30MB)
big improvement over dos for many things
an install could be easily moved from one machine to another since the OS wasn't as bound to the hardware as tightly as (95/98/NT) are.
These are just some things off the top of my head. Often time makes it difficult to put things in perspective. When I was using WFW311 i liked it well enoough and postponed switching to WIN95 for quite a while (and ran a quad boot WFW311 / OS2 / WIN95 / linux system for about a year after that (until early 97). From todays standpoint it sucked. As with other advances, you gain stuff you give stuff up. Things I miss about winfw311: being able to easily move it from one machine to another (no PNP), good performace with older hardware (relatively), ease of installation, etc. Things that most impressed me about win95 - better multitasking, better memory mangement, more gdi resources (no more black icons cause the machine ran out) built in tcp/ip (trumpet sucked), long filesnames.
Overall we have come a long way, but there is still a long way to go.
Chris
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter