I really don't understand what this Calmira craze is all about. I mean, if you want a crappy Win95 shell why not just use Win95? Am I the only one who actually prefers Program Manager?

Have you ever seen Windows 95 run on a 486DX2 33Mhz? It runs, but it is like driving nails inot your eyeballs trying to do anything. With Calmira, you get the same interface of Windows 95, but you have the speed and stability of Windows 3.1x. I use Calmira on my Windows 3.1x partition, simply because I like the interface that it provides. Calmira is proof that Windows 3.1x is not dead.

Another silly question not really worth answering. But.......... Calmira is not win95. Works on low resource machines giving them a more modern look. It is almost infininatly customisable compared to progman.exe and win95 for that matter. It's free and it works. That help?

How is it a silly question? Seems to me that using Calmira would make one's system slower because it eats system resources, like CPU and RAM. Plus, I'm grossed out by the whole Win9x look. So sick of 9x crap.

if you run Calmira instead of progman.exe it doesn't use extra resouces...if you use calmira ontop of progman.exe it does use a little extra RAM

You're not the only one who likes Program Manager. I like both. (Which is why I always keep NT 3.51 running Program Manager) Calmira does run much better than Win95 on older PCs, and doesn't really use much more resources than progman. It just depends on a person's preference.

Sorry if my first post seemed rude but similar questions pop up all the time here. To add to the above posts there are a lot of folk who are starting to dable with older kit who have only known the win9x style interface and Calmira gives to them that familiar look and feel. Hope the replies satisfied your curiosity.