Whats the differents between Win 3.0, Win 3.1?

The primary difference was that Windows 3.10 came with more "multimedia enhancements" tnan Windows 3.0. There was also more drivers available for printers, moniters, amd modems included.

That, and most Win 3.1 programs I have tried on 3.0 didn't work.

Here are some excerpts from an article that someone (not I) wrote about the differences between Win 3.0 and 3.1 (I've posted the complete article once before, my apologies if this is repetition for some of you): "INFORMATION ON WINDOWS 3.0: Windows 3.0 is the only version of Windows worth running on an 8088/8086 PC. Windows 3.1 was written for the 286 standard so cannot be used. Windows 3.0 can therefore be run in three modes as opposed to Windows 3.1's two modes: 1. Real mode. This is the only mode that an 8088/8086 can run. It requires 640K. Bear in mind that in Real mode you can only use conventional memory and so you should minimalise TSR's and the like as much as possible! In real mode you can 'multi-task' in an identical fashion to Windows 1&2, ie, badly and only within the 640K DOS limit. Note: You can force Windows 3.0 to start in real mode by typing in win /r from DOS. 2. Standard mode. Standard mode will run on 286's and above. You will have trouble running Windows in standard mode on a 386 or above, however, as you are very likely to have expanded memory drivers installed and Windows standard mode does not like that! Standard mode requires a minimum of 1MB of RAM to run. On any PC with less than 2MB of RAM Windows 3.0 will try and start up in Standard mode. In standard mode you have a small degree of multi-tasking (well, task switching) within the physical memory constraints of the PC. Most programs written explicitly for Windows 3.x require standard mode to run in. There was almost no software usable in Real Mode. In theory you can force a 386+ PC to run in standard mode by typing in win /s at the command prompt but the reality is that memory managers get in the way. 3. 386 Enhanced mode. Requires 386 or above and 2MB+ of RAM. Multi-tasks co-operatively. If you have a 386 or above with more than 1MB (which most 386's had) you are better off running Windows 3.1. You can force a 386 (or higher processor) PC to run Windows 3.0 in enhanced mode with 1MB of RAM if you explicitly type in win /3. I hate to think how 'fast' it would run, through. KNOWN PROBLEMS WITH WINDOWS 3.0: Windows 3.0 was written for an 8086 kernel. This limited Window's ability to see above 640K effectively and, therefore, it's multi-tasking capabilities. This meant the operating system was unable to physically see errors and trap them. For instance, if a file was already open by one application and another one tried to open it, Windows 3.0 was unable to detect the problem. Result? The system crashed with the once famous (now forgotten) "UAE" error. UAE stands for 'Unrecoverable Application Error.' The system stopped. Windows 3.0 was not even capable of reporting what it was that caused the problem. Error trapping was greatly improved with Windows 3.1 (though you may not believe it.) As it stands, while Windows 3.0 looks a lot like Windows 3.1, it is quite a different beast 'under the hood.' You will find a lot of UAE errors in Windows 3.0 in Standard or Enhanced mode, but few in Real mode since this does not multi-task via virtual memory. In Real mode you are far more likely to run into 'Out of Memory' errors instead! Because of the limits imposed by the 8086, Windows 3.0 had difficulty dealing with raw data greater than 64K. Some programs worked around these problems, some did not. There were, in fact, two versions of Windows 3.0; Version 3.0 and 3.00a. The original release version had great difficulty displaying image files greater than 64K within applications. Word for Windows 2.0 was greatly affected by this. Revision 'A' helped fix some of these incidences but not all. Windows 3.0 had a bug in which it lost track of the screen display. If you overlap enough windows in Program Manager you will find that, as you close the windows, parts are not redrawn. The only way to restore the screen is to start up a full screen application then close it down or restart Windows." There were also some other differences (for example Win 3.0 had no support for true type fonts, and had no screen saver). In short then, use Win 3.0 only if you have to, an XT class computer or an early 286 with less than 1 meg. RAM (like the IBM 5162/5170 or a 286 laptop) both of which will not run Win 3.1. There is no contest if you have a 286/386 with 2 megs. or more of RAM.

Also AFAIK win3.0 had no sound support, but i could be wrong

Basically, although the interface is the same, under the hood Windows 3.1 is very different to Windows 3.0. Apart from other things, the 'multimedia extensions' that were an addon to Windows 3.0 are standard in 3.1. Many of the system files are still different though. And the driver format is also different so you'll have a hard time getting Windows 3.1 drivers to run on 3.0. Basically, my advice is not to run 3.0 unless you're running it on an 8086/8088 or unless you have less than 4MB of memory. Windows 3.1 will run just fine on a 4MB 286, and will provide you with much better application support. Having said that, I always liked 3.0's splash screen.

3.0 is a ittle faster also an I found it more stable, in fact i never have had 3.0 crash on me ever Woof