to add to gaby's post.....the last few versions of Calmira (shell for windows 3.1x) have long filename support built-in.....so that covers that :) james

0

None, I personally do not care about long file name support. Who are you to say which operating system is better. That is your opinion. I have one dos only machine, 2 running Win 3.1 & one running 98. You see, every time Gates releases an operating system, it is not completely compatible & will not run ALL the software that the previous version of Windows did. That is why I keep my older computers. I am not gonna run out & buy new software everytime Gates releases a new operating system, or upgrade. That is what he is wanting us to do. It is all marketing and it is definitely working. As one post put it I read, not everyone feels special showcasing the lastest operating systems by Mr. Gates. Some are content with what they have. And like GG said Win3.1 runs 100 times faster than 95/98. Whats the deal about better connectivity using the internet with win95. I connect fine to the internet running Win 3.1 with no problems. I dont understand your comment of 95 having better internet connectivity. You are being sarcastic when you asked "Why are we still running Win3.1, is it because we are using older computers" because you know that is the main reason for a lot of users. I see you were ignorant about the year2k issue. My older computers worked fine after year2k, no problems. The one I did have problems with was the '98 machine, but the problems were minimum. GET LOST JERK!

0

As I stated in my first point, I didn't pretend to offend anybody. I just WANTED TO KNOW HOW IS IT THAT PEOPLE USE A PLATFORM THAT IS OVER 10 YEARS OLD? ". You see, every time Gates releases an operating system, it is not completely compatible & will not run ALL the software that the previous version of Windows did. " That's why people release NEW versions. Old games are the only things that are never upgraded. The reason because Windows 95 has better internet conectivity is because it has a built in TCP/IP Stack, network protocols, and not many protocols work under win16 lately... .Also, remember that the lastest browsers are always released for Win32 platform first, then for Unix and finally for Win16. "Long file name emulation" is nice, but it is just not LFN. Read my post before: I said "I'm not going to force anyone to upgrade to a newer windows". The fact is that you don't know how I got Windows 2000. PC World gave for free (YEAH, for free) thousands of Windows 2000 Professional CD-ROM. These CD's we're intended to be 120 day evaluation versions of WIN2k. But the fact was that there FULL WORKING Win2000 copies without time limits. MS lost a lot a money. I upgraded to Win2k because I was sick of continuous Win9x crashes (remember thatn Win95 is based more on Win16 code than Win32), so I gave it a try...and it worked. I didn't spend nor I wanted to, more than 200 EUR in an upgrade. So, i have Windows 2000 for 0 Euros!!! :-) "I see you were ignorant about the year2k issue. My older computers worked fine after year2k, no problems" There WERE Some Y2k issues in DOSand Windows3x. Read MS database! "And like GG said Win3.1 runs 100 times faster than 95/98"...right! Because it's size is much smaller, but so many features you miss (directx, usb, AGP, EAX with creative soundcards....) "I am not gonna run out & buy new software everytime Gates releases a new operating system, or upgrade" Neither will I. I got Windows 2000 for free, thanks to PCWORLD :-) "Why are we still running Win3.1, is it because we are using older computers"...it is EVIDENT Windows 3.1 can only be found in OLD computers. GET LOST CASEY! If you can't accept somebody prefers another OS, then you can't accept other users. I personally recognise Windows 2000 is worse than UNIX, and this doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I see Windows 3.1 mor from a perspective of market quote rather than personal feelings about this OS. If we keep this way, this post will look like a tipical Win16 vs Win32 vs other platforms post...lets leave it as it is.

0

I could care less how you got Windows 2000. I did not even mention what operating system you used. I dont care! I could care less whether you bought or got it for free. I dont care what operating system you prefer, nor am I against any. Did I say that? NO. I dont care about what the Microsoft database said. I said MY computers functioned normally. Quit putting words in my mouth! It was my opinion just like you gave yours. Win3.1 can run on new computers. I know that. You said you see no reason for keeping this nice GUI for dos, but a hell of alot of people still use it including me. That was your opinion & I gave you mine. Can you not handle it. Lets leave it as that!

0

NONE, we use a platform that is over 10 years old because WE LIKE IT, & it fits our needs. DirectX, AGP, EAX with creative sound cards. This is no big deal to me & a lot of 3.1 users. There are still sound cards out there for Win3.1. I saw some in Office Depot today, and I can say mine sounds damn good. You say you think Win 95 is better then ok. We prefer Win3.1. Not everyone cares about all the features that come with 95/98/2000. If your into those features fine, but I'm not. It all depends on what you do with your computer. Can you understand that? Long file names are not vital to me. You see no point in keeping this nice GUI for dos. We do, we dont need all the added features that others need. I agree with Casey. You are not curious, just being sarcastic.

0

Applause goes out to Casey as well as the other Win 3.1 users who commentted on this post. Gee, well isn't he blessed with the knowledge of obtaining information and luck on his most recent prize posession (Win NT 5.0). Alleuah to you! You sound as though you're a pompous individual. Many wern't aware of such special free promotions. So back to a couple previous statements members posted on here. "If it works, then why keep putting more $$$ into uncle BILL's pocket" AND "I am not gonna run out & buy new software everytime Gates releases a new operating system, or upgrade." We'll your Damn right I'm not. Why? Because I am happy with what I have. Come Feb 2001, It will be seven years since I have had own my 1st PC system. Now seven years ago I paid twice the amount which some of todays recent AMDs/Pentiums systems running 9X are going for. This is my baby! My first born! I spent mega bucks on my PC some 7yrs ago, and seven yrs later I can still email, chat, explore on the web. Not to mention the use of crucial programs/applications that satisfies my wants and needs. Don't believe me? I'd suggest you take a field trip one day to some of the top Fortune 500 companies' offices today, just so you can witness through your own very eyes and learn what operating systems they are using. Haven't a clue? NONE huh. For Heaven Sakes, It is WIN 3.11! While your at it, you should ask them why. Mr. NONEthing-to-say, there will be a time when you will see where we are comming from. As you well know, your Win NT 5.0 will be a thing of the past. And I quote!

0

The charm in Win3.1(1) is the total control one enjoys over the file system. LFN's would be a slam-dunk gotta-have-it IF M$ didn't maintain the contrived crippling of LFN's in real-mode DOS.

0

Just a last question...do people use Autocad for windows 3.1 yet? Do they use MS Word 6.0 ? Does 3d studiom max run under windows 3.1? did people EVER liked Windows 3.1 (macintosh users blamed us because for them Windows 3.1 was no more than a nice Macintosh copy. People, I have to regognise that I WAS A WINDOWS 3.1 user!! I used Windows 3.1 from 1992 to 1995, when I upgraded to Win95, which was installed untill I moved to Win2k. Computer hardware gets old, that's the point of upgrading. NO OS CAN CLAIM TO BE PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE WITH ALL SOFTWARE. Windows 3.1 users...there is no reason to be annoyed for my post. Of course you don't care about win2000, but neither do I about Windows 3.1. This is a win31 forum after all :-) Long live Windows 3.1!!!! (but leave some space for newer OS. This is my last post, since it would be pointless to keep arguing for a question like this. You love Win16, I love UNIX and Win32.

0

Well, I've lied. The previous post wasn't the last one... I just wanted to add that If you've REALLY found my post Offensive, then you should Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal. Have a nice day!

0

Again here you go. No one has said your post was offensive. You dont care about Win 3.1 then you need to post in another forum. Just like Casey said, we are not against any operating system. Can you read? About computer hardware getting old & thats the point of upgrading. WE DONT WANT TO UPGRADE! We are happy with Win 3.1. It is OBVIOUS that you are annoyed that we still use it by your statements. You like UNIX, go post in a UNIX forum, but leave us alone. By the way did you finish High School because in response # 14 regognise is not a word. If you did you probably passed on D's & F's because your understanding is warped also.

0

Yeh, None seems pretty stupid. Cannot even write a decent post. In response # 9 did you mean you didnt mean to offend anyone, because you used the word pretend. In # 14 I believe you meant "People you have to remember that I was a Win 3.1 user". Hell I dont even believe he got past the 6th grade & he claims to know all this stuff about computers. Man get off this forum & go try for your GED.

0

First of all Computing.net gives space to newer OS's they are called the Windows 9x, Windows Me, Windows 2000 Forums to name but a few! Windows 3.1 runs Office 4x, which contains Word 6.0 , Excel 5.0, Powerpoint and in 4.3 Access. All can be Y2K patched with few problems. Even Windows 95/98 and NT programs had there share of minor problems. As Devonare says, many Major Companies still use Windows 3x (Most use Windows for Workgroups 3.11) becouse of cost of upgrade as well as usability I must say. No company in the right mind upgrades at the drop of a hat. Most 3.1 users here run older machines or just enjoy using it. Yes I say enjoy not have to. And nor do you. If you want to talk about Windows 2000 (aka NT5) please do so. I for one will not be offended. I use almost all versions of Windows. This PC is loaded with Me today, but will be back to 98se in the morning (via exchangable harddrives) and may well have Windows 3.1 on later on! But ask me what I like, and I will tell you 'All of them' Visit my PowerLoad Resource Pages and see what over a 1000 users a week want to see - Yes MS-DOS & Windows 3.1 Updates & Utilities! I say no more!!

0

All versions of windows have there uses. If you like what you use OK - If you want to play with NT thats OK with me as well. But if all you want to do here is say "my computer is bigger than yours". Please, please, please, do so elsewere! We are happy with our lot, as are the users on the NT or 2000 Forums - Why not go and join them!

0

Mr. NONE: Your initial post should of been direct. You had to add mocking statements such as "Even windows 95 is better. It has long file name support (which is very important nowadays), and better Internet conectivity". You should of just stick with the question at hand. I'm sure if many were to get their hands on the latest windows version for pennies on the dollar they would intend to use it. You must also take into consideration the significant aid of older systems running WIN 3.X. Tell me which would you rather see: Certain public schools fighting city budget deficit crises w/o or with very limited # of computers running windows for our young ones, or a converted computer lab filled mostly running WIN 3X PCs and (if budget permitting) a few other operating systems running WIN 9X and all connected to the internet w/ useful software? What about Non-Profit organizations. They can't be forgotten as well. Machines with Win 3X built in, sell for dirt cheap now, from flea markets to previous owners. Some are even given for free to facilities or organizations which meet certain qualifications from major institutions who can afford a total revamp of their own machines. Win 3X is still effective for many different aspects for those who are new to computers or not. Given the cummilative answers to your question listed on this post, You now see why people still choose/must/enjoy to use WIN 3X. Regardless of your opinion, this operating systems still can serve many purposes and perform them well. Just so you know, I don't have a problem with people who use WIN 9X. Never had and never will! I came on here to respond to your subject matter. So keep your question plain and simple, NONE!

0

Wake up guys!! Its the year 2000. Win 3.1 was out 10 years ago. So what if win 3.1 is faster. You are limited to what games you can play. The next version of windows is not going to support DOS so game makers will not either. Why is all 3.1 users living in the past. The trouble is your like people with their first cars, never want to let it go. Hell I was one for Win 3.1 at a time but I now have all versions of Windows and I can say they from Win98 upwards, 3.1 is a bag s---e. Wake up to modern technology.

0

I'm sure this is None writing in as someone else. Why does it bother you ignorant people what we prefer to run on our machines. You dont have to use it. Get a life, I bet you idiots dont even have a girlfriend. Get Lost!

0

People use whatever makes you happy. This is a free country. You can see None has a problem, just leave it alone. We use Win for workgroups at my job, so what. None has nothing better to do but to write in trying to piss people off because they use older software. WHO CARES. Son do you have a job, go to school. Try to make your time useful instead of arguing with people over something as stupid as this. Get into some activities. You are just making a fool out of yourself. You have a terrible lack of understanding. All these post & you have missed everyones point. To each his own son. I'll tell you what. Why dont you write a letter to all the businesses using Win3.1 & try to get them to cross over to a more modern technologoy. This will give you something to do with your time,cause I'll tell you what, you are getting no where on this forum. I'll give you my companies address if you like. Signed, A grandpa in Miami

0

Ok, ok, I'm tired of reading nonsenses about me, about the educative system in the US, and about computers in general: 1-Ian is not me 2-I'm not from from the US 3-Linux runs better than windows 3.1...and it's free (cost=0 EUR=0$). Even in legacy hardware, it runs better. Linux kernel runs under 386 and after some time 4-English is not my mother thongue! 5-The purpose of asking this question was to know who used, and still use, Windows 3.1 in our present day 6-EUR=euro... European Union 7- >You must also take into consideration the >significant aid of older systems running >WIN 3.X. Tell me which would you rather >see: Certain public schools fighting city >budget deficit crises w/o or with very >limited # of computers running windows for >our young ones, or a converted computer lab >filled mostly running WIN 3X PCs and (if >budget permitting) a few other operating >systems running WIN 9X and all connected to >the internet w/ useful software? What about >Non-Profit organizations. They can't be >forgotten as well. Machines with Win 3X >built in, sell for dirt cheap now, from >flea markets to previous owners. Some are >even given for free to facilities or >organizations which meet certain >qualifications from major institutions who >can afford a total revamp of their own >machines. Win 3X is still effective for >many different aspects for those who are >new to computers or not. Given the >cummilative answers to your question listed >on this post, You now see why people still >choose/must/enjoy to use WIN 3X. Regardless >of your opinion, this operating systems >still can serve many purposes and perform >them well. Just so you know, I don't have a >problem with people who use WIN 9X. Never >had and never will! I came on here to >respond to your subject matter. So keep >your question plain and simple, NONE! Schools have aid from institutions, that is, the European Union, The goverment...even in the UK! That's where finantial help comes. If the cost of OS is expensive, then why not moving to linux, which is free, standard and works in old systems? I can't beleive the US, being the 1st world economy doesn't have enought money for decent hardware at schools! The last computer using Windows 3.1 was removed from my high school in 1997, that is, about 3 years ago. I've already left school, and certainly, not with an F. I won't tell me my current situation, but I'm offended about how people see me:as a b---tard. I didn't use offensive words. 8-Sorry if you think i'm a complete asholle who has nothing else to do. I still this has been a complete misunderstanding since I began replying. 9-You are the one who piss yourselfs. Under no circunstance, I though such a silly post would create such a big debate. I didn't s Regard from Europe None PS: You can call yourselved a free country, but, are you really free? One thing that I'd like to point out (and This really pisses me off!!!)in a pseudo-free country like yours it is almost a crime to smoke (I don't smoke), but politicians, and many people don't care about real issues, such as death penalty (WHICH I'M COMPLETLY AGAINST), and guns (THEY SHOULD BE BANNED). I won't make more posts. Feel free to consider me a complety idiot without education. Go on saying I have a mega system, and I like Upgrading only because it's fun (complete fantasies) . And keep on dreaming,and beleiving you are the ones that are in possesion of the truth. I WON'T

0

PS: I'm not in possesion of the truth

0

I am English. I live in Europe. But as far as the €uro goes, forgat it. I TEACH computing at college and I will tell you why Linux is not used in schools - IT IS NOT INDUSTERY STANDARD! 85% of Companies (Including goverment departments) So grow up NONE (Why hide behind a nickname?) I let people make up thier own minds. This message was sent from a 486DX66 running Windows 3.1 & Internet Explorer 3 with no updates or patchs. Could have used a better machine, or even Windows 98 but what the heck!

0

Man did none blow this out of proportion. We are glad you are not from the U.S. Such stupidity is not allowed here. Polititians, the death penalty, guns, what the hell are your talking about. THIS IS A COMPUTER HELP FORUM,not a political debate forum. Hey maybe you need to run for Office with all your great political views & suggestions. Oh well maybe not. You will first have to take some English classes and learn how to write properly without so many mispelled words. By the way, this is the second time you posted saying this was your last post. I hope that it is your last because you are a complete nutcase from the above post. See ya PSYCHO!

0

Yeh for Mark, I can tell by your post you are a very intelligent person. You made great points, unlike our illiterate friend none. Can you believe None. This guy is totally off his rockers, a complete basketcase. First he says Win3.1 serves many purposes & he can see from our answers why we choose/must/enjoy Win3.1, then earlier in his post he starts to list advantages of Linux and that it runs better on older computers & is free. Man what is your problem? Do you obviously think where you are from that everyone uses the latest operating system put out & no one in your country uses Win3.1, Dos, etc, or any other older software. If you believe that you are a bigger NUT than we all thought. Mark there is nothing wrong with your computer. It works & your post posted fine just as good as someone useing WIN95/98/2000/ or ME. Good luck to you! but for none, he is a hopeless case, a sorry excuse for a human being.

0

Will all those who got offended over what one person said about their beloved OS please stop being so stupid. Its only an OS not a religion, so why not get on with life. PS this is not none

0

I like Windows 3.1 (or win 4 workgroups) because I love old things; I even have these versions of Windows :- Windows 1.0 Windows 286 Windows 3.0, 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups Windows CE 2 Windows 98 and my latest Windows Me. A lot of these I found in car boot sales and jumble sales and I love all of them! I am not here to say what is better, I just like to run all of my OSes and remember old times! Windows 3.1 is one of my favourites... it can run trillions of programs! I even have an Amiga 500, an Amiga 600, and an Amiga 1200! Remember those? And to finish off, a working VIC20 with all the bits and a C64 also with all the bits! I'm an old computer collector and I love all of my computers, all those classic games. Well, I'll be off for now! Dale

0

Dale I'm with you. I love old things & am a collector of old computers. I only have 13 oldies so far. I have all versions of Windows also, well all except Me & have from dos 3 on up. I did not remember Win1.0 , 2,03 or Win286, because I was rather young when they came out, so when I finally got my hands on them & tried them out I got a kick out of it. My how times have changed. I am looking forward to finding more old software & computer equipment.

0

Welcome to WW3. I like None came to this site out of curiosity to see what people were still doing with 3.1. I still have a couple of 386's with it on that I like to play with at home, and I set up one for my grandma with 3.1 and an old pin printer that one of my old customers gave me---she is nearing 80 and happier than a gopher in soft dirt that she does not have to go through so much correction fluid on her typewriter anymore. I agree with these guys, it is fun to collect old computers and think about how far we have come in the last 10 years. I am also a high ranking computer guru that because of work needs to have the latest and greatest-my favorite right now is NT and 98SE--98/95 were unstable SE is better. My current workstation is a p3 800MHz running W2K Pro.-with SP1-IT locks up regularly and I have had odd network issues with it, so I am not impressed with it either. Now, to all of you hot heads that get so pissed of at someone asking a simple question. LIFE IS TOO SHORT.

0

NO MORE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE YOU HAVE MADE YOUR POINT WINDOWS LIVES ON! GREAT. Now get on with your lives!

0

I use a wide variety of operating systems and Windows For Workgroups 3.11 is one of them, Why ??? I use WFW on a 486 file server on my network which runs very efficiently uses less memory and doesn't have to run on expensive hardware, has virtually no downtime is very stable, never locks up and you can just shut off the power and turn it back on and you don't have to worry about those anoying shutdown errors like in Win95/98. My system has no problems keeping up with a network of 7 systems 4 of wich are PII 500Mhz and the other two are PI 233Mhz and the other a 100Mhz.

0

Windows 3.1/Workgroups will live on forever regardless of negative responses. The majority of people who posted on this subject really brought out the great features of Win3.1 which is why still after all these years, a lot of people still use it. From reading everyones post this was a really good debate & shows that just because an operating system is old does not mean it is not useful. They will still be of use years to come.

0

I read most of the posts concerning a simple question/comment made in this forum by NONE. If ever there were ever cases of inferiority complexes to be found...then it would be here. It seems it would have been easier for all those people who posted negative and defensive messages to just admit they aren't smart enough to upgrade to another operating system.

0

Kenny If you had any intelligence or understanding, you would not have posted such an ignorant response. You have missed the point also. It is all about choice. I run all versions of operating systems from pcdos/msdos to Windows ME. It is all about choice. Obviously you are not very smart yourself. It reads WINDOWS 3.1 FORUM. The writer of this post makes it VERY CLEAR that he does not care for Win 3.1. He tries to make it seem that he is asking a simple question & then says Linux is better for older machines & tries to list advantages of others & sees no point in using this GUI for dos. I am a computer tech and see all brands of computers & operating systems. They come into our shops for repairs/ect. I see nothing wrong with any of these OS old or new. Regardless though, there will be ignorant postings here regarding this matter. Actually the users here are smart. If you dont need the extra features that come with the newer versions of Windows then why go out & waste money on something you dont need or use. To Kenny & to all who posted negative on this, if you cannot understand that then you are the ones that are dumb with a lack of understanding. Cant you see you are not going to change anyones minds regardless of what you say.

0

Guys please lets end this post. I am a computer technician also & I'll tell you what None, Kenny, & whoever else better not go into the field I am in. You will be mad daily because like Robert said "WE GET THEM ALL IN" running in & everything. WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE WHAT ANYONE ELSE RUNS ON THERE MACHINES. IT'S STUPID. I DONT CARE IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS & IT'S NONE OF ANYONE ELSES. PEOPLE THIS HAS GOT TO STOP. JUST BECAUSE YOU UPGRADE YOUR COMPUTER TO THE NEWEST OPERATING SYSTEM DOES NOT MAKE YOU SMART!

0

Anyone know where I can download Windows 3.0

0

I used Win 3.1 because it came with my IBM PS1 when I purchased it six years ago. I use Win 98 now because it came with the Compaq 5340 I purchased early last year to replace my PS1. When I switched to Windows 98 from 3.1, I thought "thank god, no more General Protection Fault errors!" Looking ahead five years, when I switch to whatever operating system is preinstalled on whatever computer I decide to buy, I'll say: "Thank god, no more Illegal Operation warnings, no more blue screen crashes, no more mouse frezes, no more unexplained modem shutdowns, no more rn.dll erros, no more...." Could I go back in time, I would still be using my PS1. nough said?

0

i really like old computers also and i'm very happy with my pgraded gateway that runs 3.1 and internet explorer 3. the problem i'm finding is,and i'm wondering if any of you are experiencing the same thing, i can't use hotmail because i dont have explorer 4!, is it possible to get explorer 4 loaded with a 3.1 operating system. thanks

0

Yes you can download it at the Microsoft site. You cannot use 3.0 because hotmail wants I believe 4.0 or higher. I have it on my 3.1 machine & it works great. I am sure you can download it elsewhere on the net if you do a search on it. See Ya!

0

For me, my main machine is a Linux box. I use an 486 running Win 3.11 as a client and tcp/ip as the protocol for my trial local network. I really would not want to run Win 95 on anything less than a reasonable Pentium - and on this older machine, Win 3.11 is a superior OS.

0

Not everyone has been seduced by "bigger" "faster"............... if win 3x satisfies your needs then use it. But don't let others tell you what you need. Look inside.

0

where can i get it?

0

You can download them off my site at: http://dos.s5.com

0

I am in pure amazement after reading the comments everyone posted on this site. It is insane that most people took such offense to a simple question. I am a Network Engineer student that visited this site to get some insight on a comparison paper that I am writing. It disappoints me that I wasted my time... therefore I felt the need to voice my opinion as well. It does not bother me that there are still those out there that use win 3.1(1). Throughout this whole mess of bickering, there were very few that used any technical knowledge to back up their oppinions. The longer or shorter file extensions were the only thing that I saw. To me that is not that important... I am more concerned with the poor utilization of hard drive space. 3.1 does not support larger drives or newer technology to limit the amount of slack created by older partitioning. Yes,... windows 3.1 may be faster.. but it is at a great cost I feel. There are definately more disadvantages then there are advantages. And as for the expense of upgrading... compare the cost of an average computer 10 years ago versus the ones now. There is a significant difference in price. Apparently a great deal of you are paying for an ISP to get online.. why not pay a little more money for better quality and performance.. But again.. that is only my opinion.....

0

I for one do use win 3.1 as well as OS/2 and win9x. A lot of people get caught up in wanting the newest bells and whistles and go buy the newest OS which needs the newest fastest computer around. Windows for workgroups runs GREAT on a 486-33 with 8 meg and a 340meg hard drive. You can even download updates from MS to do TCPIP instead of netbeui. sheesh, even 3.1 and office 4.2 fits on a 250meg drive with room to spare! It's a shame to see a lot of perfectly good machines going to waste only because they can only run win3.1 and no one wants to waste their time with them. I've got an old thinkpad 486 laptop that would be dog slow with 95, but is much better suited for 3.1. Dont forget, 3.1 users; goto tucows.com for 16bit applications.

0

Wow, What sparks! Look, I've used alot of OSes from MSDOS 3.3 to Win2000/ME, Netware 2.11 & up, Unix S5R4, CP/M & CP/M86, to IBM S5364(S36 orig) And I just gotta tell that guy -none- that there is no "better" OS than any other OS. I liked to work with some more then others. Some people can get some OSes to jump through hoops. And I always say if your comfortable using it stick with it, an keep it around for when the new system skrews up N ya don't have time to fiddle with the "New'N'Improved" OS. To be honest for internet usage I run my old 486 with a stripped down Win95a on a fully optimized Hard drive with all temp files/Virtual Mem going to a 255Meg partion. If a virus hits this machine, oh well. I just unzip the backup files off the bigger/newer machine and get back on the net. But then I've never used any backups yet, I have my ports closed and good networking skills. Truth be told, on this old N slow machine, I don't even run a A-Virus program. Since the hackers (N crackers) have found most all the holes in these older systems. I'm willing to bet that if I knew your IP and ran my Sys Adm tools across your new Win2000Pro I'd find a hole or two. When it comes to networking, Newer is not always better. CrAcK! '-) P.S. LFN have been a great problem for all ver of Win 9x. Can crash the sys if LFN is too long (great fun). The Shadow

0

Here's a nice thing you can do. Install Windows 95 (or 98) and 3.1 in separate directories. Then from Windows 95 create a DOS shortcut (to run in DOS Mode, with its own config.sys and autoexec.bat), which should point to WIN.COM in the Windows 3.1 directory. And hey! presto! you can run both systems on the same machine. You can have all the benefits of Windows 95/98 and still enjoy the benefits of Windows 3.1 (speed, reliability and being able to run the programs that do not run in 95, programs for which you may have paid quite some money). And remember, with DOS and Windows 3.1 you are still the owner of your hard disk. In 95 you're not. Components & updates are added to your system from the internet WITHOUT ASKING YOU. So, when you format and re-install, or upgrade you realize that half the things are not working. Not to mention the system that is always writing to your hard disk even if you have 1GB of RAM! If somebody can tell me what exactly is being written, with proof, they would solve one of the greatest mysteries of life!

0

Mr. None I am amazed with the fact that you can sit a t your machine and type that you were jealous of the mac, the older windows versions were beutiful, you cant look at windows 1.01 or 2.03 or 3.0 without being completely msmerized by their extreme beauty. We use windows 3.1 because it is better, was better, and always will be a great msaterpiece of technology. Mr.A

0

to NONE >Why do you people still use windows 3.1? Only an idiot would come this group and ask that question so: Why are you an idiot? or better why are you an idiot who doesn't use Win 3.1? Why do you drive a Volkswagen? Why are you so proud of Win2000? Senseless questions..! The system you so proudly point Win2000 will be very severely pressed to retain its value as long as Win3.x...but in the meantime no dumb questions unless your Real aim was to irritate a lot of folks.. Why did I read your message?????????????

0

You say you have a problem with Windows 3.1? Windows 2000 Professional is the slowest system ever. Windows 3.1 may not support popular new applications but at least they do not have to have special adapters or new hardware requirements.

0

ive got to work with a good computer. on it i run windowsNT and 2000 (backup) and windows 98 for games other than that i don't know s--- abaout them so i bought a old 286 for not even 10 dollars with it i play (in the bad sense of the word) with it i pull out carts while its running to see wat happens an i try to get a cd-rom player running (don't think it will work, it a 32 speed) and i learn a lot obout pc now like the say "its best to learn to ride on an old bike" its not to bad if you f--- it up!! greetings Daniel PS: don't mind the bad english its not my native language

0