I am wondering, why do you guys still use Win3.1? Before you get annoyed, let me explain. I LOVE Windows 3.1, I don't have a machine that doesn't have it installed. I like the interface and it is much faster than the Win98 I also use now and then. I am just curious why other users like it, too.

... pretty much the same reason... it's a low end GUI, compatible with the old DOS machines, really flies on a marginal (by modern standards) Pentium class computer. Plenty of software available, most of it's either freeware, public domain or so widely distributed it may as well be free.
Dunno if I actually Love it... but it gets the job done. ;-)

first let me tell you my main machine has windows xp rc 2526 with dsl
I use windows 3.1 just because it was the first OS I used with a gui, the nostalgia and thrill of getting that first pc turned on for the first time
I never felt like that on other versions of windows
pure nostalgia I suppose
Its like getting your first car, your first house, your first job

I'm simply drawn to Win 3.1. Beautiful, simple, and (for the most part)stable.
Unfortunately, Microsoft abandoned that look/feel with Windows 95. Not entirely bad, but Win 3.1 was better.
I was trained in computers under old Mac OS's, DOS, and Windows 3.1. And, despite all these improvements we've seen, i can't help but hold these old OS's in my highest respects. And Hell, they work; they work well. Word processing, applications, games, whatever.
So why not use Windows 3.1? It's works, and, moreover, it's good and fun. What more do you need?
Xanathar15

In response to "dude", that is one of the other reasons that I use Win 3.1. I first learned how to use a computer with Windows 3.1 and have never enjoyed any OS as much.
Also, to everybody, thanks for the replies!

One last thing, Xanathar15 mentioned word processing. You wouldn't happen to know where to get Word 2.0 besides FinguzFury, would you?

I use Windows 3.1 because I build computers, and most of them are not very powerful. Windows 3.1 can run with a minimum of 4 megs of RAM, which most people have. Windows 3.1, however, is *not* an operating system. It is instead a shell to make MS-DOS tasks a hell of a lot easier.

Windows 3.1 was a big step up for Windows (from versions 1 or 2, anyway). It showed that Microsoft could be serious, and they were. Then they invented Windows NT and Windows 95 (and so on...), with each version having so many add-ons and "extra features", that they forget about the shell and kernel itself and don't fix bugs, but add to them.

My point is, Windows 3.1 keeps it simple, gives most people a good feel and interface (even in 16 colors) while at the same time supporting a large range of device drivers and programs. There are also many free-ware programs that are pretty good, which I use on a regular basis.

WINDOWS 3.1 FOREVER!

nostalgia is not much of a factor for me. i started programming in basic on a trs-80 model 3. do i own a trs-80? no, i have a clone running dos 6.22 and win 3.1.

most of the most electronics software for labs that i have used is written for win 3.1. it is not designed for windows 95/98. win me/xp can't run most of this software.

win 3.1 is perfect for those of us who work in a lab. it is also easy to take care of. just stop running windows, go to dos and run whatever utility you have to use.

I use 3.1 in my classroom. I beg steal and borrow old 3.1 machines, install excellent learning software and wordprocessing/dtp software and we're away. At one stage I had eight pcs in a classroom - this within a school with very limited ICT room access. I picked up one at the local rubbish tip - it had publisher version 1.0 on it! Beautiful! Couldn't work out how to extract it back to disk though and it's now dead. I don't have word 2.0 but I do have publisher 2.0 zipped and winsplit across 5 floppies. And Office on 25 floppies which cost £1.00 at a car boot sale. For basic classroom text manipulation 3.1 is so bloody stable.

Have recently moved schools and gave 2 machines away to disadvantaged kids - they were made up with them. My new classroom has a pentium pc with a projector and interactive whiteboard at one end and three old Acorn riscos machines at the other!

I'll never part with my dos, 3.1 and other floppies.

Win 3.1 is
- simple
- fast
- tweakable and fixable (something later versions are not)
- has lots of great software available, ...although more and more difficult to find(does someone know where I can find helix hurricane 1.02 or later for Win3.1?)

Well, I use 3.11 to be exact. Windows for workgoups.
My most important computer runs 3.11
Internet machine has run 95, 98, and now 2000.
3.11 is the simpliest, most intuitive and simply best operating system to date.
An end user can eventually understand 3.11.
No one, not even Bill Gates could possibly master the gargantuan programs that followed.
My only problem.
Still searching for a 3.1 cd-rw write program.

Hummm me thinks u guys need to move on, we are in 2001 now not 94.

Win 3.1 maybe fast but u can't play any of the decent games that are out now.

And as for 3.1 living for eva..... GET A LIFE!!!

Well, "Ian", you seem to have neglected something. I DON'T USE OR WANT ANY OF YOUR "decent" GAMES! I use Windows 3.11 for USEFUL, PRODUCTIVE programs that get things done. And it works just fine for what I need it for. If I were to do the same things in Win9x/ME, it would take much longer. That's why Win9x/ME is perfect for you. It is nicely dumbed down (a.k.a. "user friendly) so it is easy for you to get your "decent" games started. That's fine for you. But when I want to be quick and productive, I'll stick with what I like! And if I don't want to do that, I can easily switch to the brain dead Win98 that is also on my system, only there because my scanner requires it.

WINDOWS 3.1 LIVES ON!!!

LONG LIVE WIN 3.1!!!

By the way, "Ian", you'd be better off keeping out of the Win3.1 section. I've seen you name and bad typing on other posts about why we use Win3.1. You could at least stick to the posts where the initial post was an insult to us.

I read the responses to "why", very uplifting! I say "why not?" Why should we no use a program which was rather well debugged, instead of one whose chief boasts are corporate manipulation, and any idiot can run it(until it has problems, say in about 1 hour, then call the high-priced local "tech", who doesn't know anything about it but still charges). Then make a new impoved version every year, talk about Windows for dummies! REMEMBER, MOST OF THE SCHOOL ADMINS AND MOST COORPERATE BUYERS REALLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTING! Anyway, I have a problem, well more than one, so I,lle start with 1 and go from there later: How do I find an Internet Audio Plugin for Netscape Communicator 4.08, and is it my imagination or are THEY wiping all support for Win3x off the Internet?

Don't know about question 1, I'm not a Netscape user, reccommend posting as a seperate question. Question 2, who might "they" be? If you mean Microsoft, as far as I know, they have completely abandoned Win3.1 which means they have dumped all or most of their support for it.

Phil21 -- get in touch re: Hurricane.

There is a fundamental difference between 3.1 and 95, in that 3.1 is a shell for DOS, and DOS works directly with the physical memory, while 95 and later create "virtual machines" in memory and you interact with those. In most cases that is better. However, a lot of good, solid, practical software was written expecting to write directly to the hardware. Win 95, 98, and ME can imitate this, but can't do it, so those programs don't run well. NT and 2000 can't run those programs at all.

When I replaced my 486 with a Pentium running 95OSR2, a lot of fun little things I was used to using didn't run -- or didn't run well -- on the new machine, because some were designed to write to hardware, while others were bundled with the Packard Bell and wouldn't run without the PB motherboard. So I've kept the old one around. I don't so much prefer 3.1 as I enjoy that software.

Just for example, the PB was an excellent answering and fax machine. The new one has never done this well at all. (Now I own an answering machine, so it's moot.)

At the moment the PB is broken, and the challenge of making it go again is always, always, in the back of my mind.

Peter