Windows 3.11 anyone running it online?

[Net]

anyone running it with internet access?

 

[Aberforth]

No, but I have it on Virtualpc.

 

[corkyg]

Wow! That's a voice from the past. I have the floppies for it - but would never dream of using it today. Most all my hardware has left it in the dustbin of history.

 

[RebateMonger]

Is there a question you wanted to ask? But, no, I haven't used it since I set up my first home network with WFW 3.11 around 1992.

 

[Net]

do you think i would be able to run it on my AMD K6-2 550mhz?

 

[Chiropteran]

I did once use it to get online. An old 486/40mhz computer, wasn't really good enough for Win95. I had to install some 3rd party TCP/IP stack and dialup software because Win 3.11 didn't have it built in.

It was horribly unstable and slow.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: net
do you think i would be able to run it on my AMD K6-2 550mhz?

I can't imagine why not. Win 3.11 was from the 486 era, with CPU speeds of 25 to 100 MHz or so.

Gosh, now you've reminded me of how awful Windows 1.x to 3.11 really was.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger


Gosh, now you've reminded me of how awful Windows 1.x to 3.11 really was.

I used DOS in preference to Win3.1. I had a shareware program that gave you labeled buttons to click to launch apps. That was nice, and it didn't bog the computer down like Windows did. All computer administration I did through DOS.

 

[Aberforth]

I like Windows 95 though, had to stand in line for 7 hours to get it- that's why I still preserve my copy in those days I used to connect to internet via ISDN/Dial-up Modem.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
I used DOS in preference to Win3.1. I had a shareware program that gave you labeled buttons to click to launch apps. That was nice, and it didn't bog the computer down like Windows did. All computer administration I did through DOS.

I used DESQView (Quarterdeck's DOS-based multtasking software) from '87 until '92. Unfortunately, Windows 3.x used the 386's Protected Mode, as did DESQView 386, I had to make a choice between the two.

 

[Net]

what old windows operating system (below 98) would you pick to put on a 550mhz?

 

[lxskllr]

What's wrong with Win98? That was the best of class imo, and it should run pretty well on a 550mhz system.

 

[Aberforth]

Just a little warning, Win 98/95 may fry your new dual/quad core CPU in a long run. Old OS's doesn't issue HLT commands to the CPU to cool down it's transistors.

 

[postmortemIA]

Win 2000 doesn't do it well either. My P4 was 10C hotter running on 2000 than on XP.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: net
what old windows operating system (below 98) would you pick to put on a 550mhz?

Linux

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: net
what old windows operating system (below 98) would you pick to put on a 550mhz?

Linux

Agreed.
Modern software support, security, and stability worlds beyond any windows besides NT editions (and I'd argue current linux blows away anything microsoft produced prior to 2006 as well), and with Wine, it can probably run whatever old windows software you were hoping to run (or not).

That, or try ReactOS for fun. It's a reverse engineered version of Windows using the Wine API to achieve compatibility. It's not yet considered use stable though, but it's beta release is coming up soon.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: net
what old windows operating system (below 98) would you pick to put on a 550mhz?

Linux

Agreed.
Modern software support, security, and stability worlds beyond any windows besides NT editions (and I'd argue current linux blows away anything microsoft produced prior to 2006 as well), and with Wine, it can probably run whatever old windows software you were hoping to run (or not).

That, or try ReactOS for fun. It's a reverse engineered version of Windows using the Wine API to achieve compatibility. It's not yet considered use stable though, but it's beta release is coming up soon.

except that linux reqs are as demanding as vista's, unless you want to run DSL on 2.4 kernel

 

[The Keeper]

Depends on distro. Xubuntu would probably run fine on an K6-2. http://www.xubuntu.org

To run the Desktop CD (LiveCD + Install CD), you need 128 MB RAM to run or 192 MB RAM to install. The Alternate Install CD only requires you to have 64 MB RAM.
To install Xubuntu, you need 1.5 GB of free space on your hard disk.
Once installed, Xubuntu can run with 192 MB RAM, but it is strongly recommended to have at least 256 MB RAM.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: net
what old windows operating system (below 98) would you pick to put on a 550mhz?

Linux

Agreed.
Modern software support, security, and stability worlds beyond any windows besides NT editions (and I'd argue current linux blows away anything microsoft produced prior to 2006 as well), and with Wine, it can probably run whatever old windows software you were hoping to run (or not).

That, or try ReactOS for fun. It's a reverse engineered version of Windows using the Wine API to achieve compatibility. It's not yet considered use stable though, but it's beta release is coming up soon.

except that linux reqs are as demanding as vista's, unless you want to run DSL on 2.4 kernel

I disagree that they're as demanding as Vista.
Even Ubuntu is comparable in resource usage to Windows XP, significantly less by the time you get up to service pack 3 in fact. Xubuntu is even lighter, and runs comfortable in 256MB of ram. From my experience:
Windows XP pre service packs - runs OK in 256MB of ram, 512MB makes it run quite good
Windows XP service pack 2/3 - barely runs in 256MB of ram, 512MB makes it run ok, >512MB to run good
Windows Vista - Barely runs in 512MB of ram, runs ok in 1GB, needs >1GB to run well
prior to any service packs. It has about half the memory usage of windows xp service pack 3.

Ubuntu - runs OK in 256MB of ram, runs well in 512MB (so comparable to XP pre service packs but with a far more stable and secure code base)
Xubuntu - Runs well in 256MB of ram, but as it's essentially a stripped down ubuntu, I doubt it can go any lower

Linux is nowhere near as demanding as Vista. As well, distros like Damn Small Linux and Puppy Linux are quite usable and have very low resource requirements. Though with the amount of memory a K6-2 system is likely to have, they're probably a perfect fit.
Windows 2000 wouldn't be a horrible choice either (though I'd argue still inferior) so long as you dump IE and use Firefox or Opera.