The fact is some people just prefer the ease of use and faster speed of win 3.1 to the complication and advanced features(most of which serve no purpose to the average user and waste space/resources) of later Windows versions. Some people just don't feel the need to upgrade and enjoy their computers as they are. Win 3.1 like linux, OS2, Win NT,Etc is just a personally preference. Now most of us at this forum prefer Win 3.1 and it is not appreciated when someone comes to our forum and questions why we bother with win 3.1

0

you realize you're just encouraging them, right? They love to see us get angry, that's why they come here.

0

I own a small company with 5 standalone PC all running MS-DOS 6.22 & Windows 3.1. Do you want a job? Main skill is a working knowledge of the above. No? Sorry!

0

I use Win 3.1 because I wanted. 'nuff said

0

Yes,I agree with you.I like DOS and Win3.x.

0

Jaguar, You mean to say that there are other GUIs? Thanks man I really appreciate the news. Do tell us more!

0

I use windows XP. I learned all the basics from 3.1 at the age of 14. I am not going to put it down. If you people like 3.1 then more power to you. stick with it. If people come to this forum to put 3.1 down, just dont respond. I came to this forum to find out why 3.1 was still being used. Not to put it down, but i did want to know. I know the basics about it and I see nothing wrong with it. The way I see it... If all the other O.S were so much better, than why are there so many problems listed in the forums. you people have a good night!

0

I've got no idea why you all get angry if somebody asks you why you use an "obsolete" system... Where's you're problem? Are you afraid that your answers may be unsufficient or even ridiculous?? My answer is a simple question: Would you sell your 10 years old car if it runs fine and meets all your needs, just because there's a newer model? Or your refrigerator or your washing machine? Bye, Gaby

0

The difference between using 3.1 and later versions is like the difference between driving a car with a stick shift and gauges on the dash, verses an automatic with idiot lights on the dash. One lets you see more clearly how the system is operating and gives you more control over certain operations. The other is designed for cruising. One is not necessarily better than the other -- they're just different. I think a better question to ask would be: Why did Microsoft abandon the 3.1 style interface? It wouldn't have cost anything to allow that option, and may have increased sales/upgrades to later versions, plus improve goodwill from it's users.

0

I don't get angry when someone just asks. But most of the time they are trying to tell us how stupid we are for not "upgrading". The whole reason they come is to see us get mad, and the more anrgy replies they get, the more likely they are to do it again, just to try to get on our nerves.

0

I'm H A P P Y W I T H I T Thats why!

0

Cos it runs on my 486 laptop with 2MB ran and a 200MB hard drive, it also runs happily on My amiga PC emulator, I run 98SE on this system and 3.x is more stable than 9.x, and faster too Woof

0

Okay, this is what I think about it. Windows 3.1 is a very good operating system if your computer will run like ---- with Windows 95. I use to use 3.1 and it can get very confusing and it is hard to set up some stuff. Now to Gaby: Gaby, I think 3.1 still has its "kicks." I used it in my Pentium 1 90 MHz 24 MB computer once upon a time, a it was a really good hold-off until I was able to set up Windows 95 again. So, the main theme about all this is this: If your computer got the muscle for Windows 95 or Windows 98, run that instead. If your comptuer has no choice but 3.1, run 3.1. But do yourself a favor and get a program that will make it like WIndows 9x. It will help you a lot.

0

Some of us don't want to run 95 even if we can because we don't like it. Others, like merun both. In my case, I have 3.1 and 95 (and more) on the same PC. In most things, 3.1 run considerably faster. (And yes, I use Calmira. But I like Program Manager quite a bit, too, which is why I don't use Calmira in Win NT 3.51. I like Calmira, but the Win9x interface isn't a requirement for me. I even have a Win95 PC that is using Program Manager for the shell!)

0

As a matter of fact, if you want to get technical, Windows 3.1 is a hell of a lot faster than 95, in many ways. If I Had 3.1 back on, I would definitely use Calmira.

0

ACURA: > As a matter of fact, if you want to get > technical, Windows 3.1 is a hell of a lot > faster than 95, in many ways. Yep, my system is a 486-33 and if I'd do the same things in W95 that I do with it in 3.11, it won't run at all... ;) Of course my 3.11 isn't faster than a W95 on a Pentium-166. With all the software I've installed and all options a.s.o. (Calmira, a couple of fonts, big wallpaper, Win2K startup sound....) it even takes a bit longer to start. But it's the ideal system for this kind of hardware. > If I Had 3.1 back on, I would definitely > use Calmira. I've no idea what I would do if there wasn't a thing like Calmira... :) Bye, Gaby

0

Well, if you have a low level system like I used to have (A IBM TP 760L with a 90 MHz Pentium processor), 3.1 runs a lot faster than 95 and of course, 95 runs faster than 98

0

People not upgradeing because of slow CPU or slow computer. You can't put Windows 98SE on 386 computer or even on 486 computer with 50MHz CPU I injoy useing Windows 3.1 myself. I have 566MHz computer with Windows 98SE Why i do not upgrade to Windows XP? It's because i do not like Windows XP This is why some people do not upgrade

0

The DOS/Win 3.1 combination is so stable it is used in plenty of Air Force avionics test systems and aircraft diagnostic units. Most F-16 engine data downloads are done with an IBM XT-based hardened portable computer running DOS 3.0, and the EDNA avionics download unit runs Win 3.11. The old software runs great from ROM, flash memory, and solid state drives. Not everyone running DOS/Win3x is a nostalgia freak. It just works. :)

0

I need 3.1 desperatly please send me win 3.1. My son deleted my IBM Thinkpad.Everything is gone and no way to get it back without win3.1 install disks.Thank you Judy

0

"Of course my 3.11 isn't faster than a W95 on a Pentium-166" That is correct, to a point. For example, my 486 133Mhz does several things much faster in Win 3.11 than it does in 95. But some other things, like the internet and file copying/transfering are faster in Windows 95. I use 3.11 for some Internet stuff though because when you factor in the startup time, it is much faster to check my email or look at a couple websites quickly. If I was going to be on for a while, I might go into 95. I assume the file transfer is faster because of it being 32-bit. But 3.11 is still much faster in several other things.

0

You know what should be the difference on what you use on your pc. If everyone was using V8 engines in all the vechicles, should that mean you should do the same??? I am happy with a 4 cylinder, which could represent Windows 3.1 It is stable unlike some other things out there!!!

0

You need both versions. In windows 3.11 resize two windows so as to copy data from one file to another. Now try to do that with Windows 9XX. The print is too small to read in the newer windows. On the other hand you need Windows 9XX because you cannot get specialized software for Windows 3.11 anymore. I am looking for CD burning software right now because 3.11 ia all that will run on a 386SX and there is no software for it anymore.

0

goldenhawk.com has CDRWIN for DOS as a free download, and they keep updating it. With what hardware do you burn CDs on a 386??

0

I am impressed. I have used and run: dos 6.xx win3.1, 3.11, 95, 98 Nt 3.1, 3.51, 4, 2000, xp Of ALL of these Nt 3.1 appealed the most. Why? because it has all of the std networking features of nt with no bloat and a nostalgic gui. DOS has the highest power to size ratio of any MS os. I use XP because my system is fast and I game a lot but keep it up folks

0