Opinion: windows 3.x or windows xp?

March 3, 2010 at 14:38:00
Specs: Windows 95 OSR2/Windows XP Professional, AMD Athlon XP 2200/480MB(512MB total but 32MB shared for video
I think that windows xp is still too slow on a fast computer. having run windows 3.1 on a separate partition though, i know for a fact that on a semi modern machine (1.8 GHZ AMD Athlon 2200, 512MB ram, 60 GB HD) windows 3.x takes about 4 and a half seconds to complete boot up completely. Do you think that if Microsoft would have kept on supporting and making drivers and applications for windows 3.1 that you would switch back to 3.1? This would include updates such as larger than 4GB partitions by running on dos 7, Win 32's, newer IE versions, and possibly even Win 64's (all of these being speculated and nonexistent except for win 32's).

See More: Opinion: windows 3.x or windows xp?

Report •

#1
March 4, 2010 at 10:23:38
"i know for a fact that on a semi modern machine (1.8 GHZ AMD Athlon 2200, 512MB ram, 60 GB HD) windows 3.x takes about 4 and a half seconds to complete boot up completely."

That's because the actual operating system--DOS--is already loaded when you type Win. When you start Win 3.x, you're really just starting a DOS application. It's kinda like starting Photoshop CS4 under modern Windows--it too launches in 3-4 secs on a fast machine.

"This would include updates such as larger than 4GB partitions by running on dos 7, Win 32's, newer IE versions"

That would be Windows 95...without the taskbar and Start button. :-)

"Do you think that if Microsoft would have kept on supporting and making drivers and applications for windows 3.1 that you would switch back to 3.1?"

Hell no. I'd have a hard enough time going back to WinXP.

Turbocharged 939 | Dual-core Opteron 185 @ 3.2GHz | 2x 8800GTS in SLI | 4GB PC3200 @ CL2 | A8N32-SLI Deluxe |1TB | PCI-E X-Fi Titanium Pro | Swan D1080MKII + Dayton 10" 125w sub | W7 Ultimate


Report •

#2
March 4, 2010 at 12:24:19
I find it difficult to compare apples to jackalope antlers. If DOS/Win3.x would do anything more than it does do we'd still be buying it in the stores. But we're not...

And, DOS on my Athlon XP2400+ doesn't load or perform any faster than on the 486DX2/50 I use in the kitchen.

Skip


Report •

#3
March 4, 2010 at 18:30:35
by 4 and a half seconds, I meant from turning the machine on to once autoexec.bat automatically ran windows (if configured that way).

Report •

Related Solutions

#4
March 4, 2010 at 19:01:48
"If DOS/Win3.x would do anything more than it does do we'd still be buying it in the stores." ... Q.E.D.

Castles used to be great fortresses too, but then came gunpowder & the cannon & well, that was it.

As far as boot up time, any machine that takes too long (minutes) to boot has other problems that just can't be attributed solely to the modern OS.

Windows 7 News!


Report •

#5
March 4, 2010 at 19:17:23
I was exaggerating a little bit when I said minutes, but it does take at least about 50 seconds or longer.

Report •

#6
March 4, 2010 at 19:38:48
>>>"Do you think that if Microsoft would have kept on supporting and making drivers and applications for windows 3.1 that you would switch back to 3.1?"<<<

Certainly, but there simply were limitations to DOS that wouldn't allow all the applications and other programs we have today. If Microsoft did themselves a favor, it was by supporting older apps on newer OS's (I ran Word 2.0/Excel 4.0 on Windows98SE for quite some while, with no issues). It's conceivable that some of the barriers could have been broken, but the Windows GUI was competing with other OS's (specifically Apple's) for a new look, thus the redesigned look of Windows95 (which I hold onto even on Windows7).


Report •

#7
March 4, 2010 at 21:59:18
"Certainly, but there simply were limitations to DOS that wouldn't allow all the applications and other programs we have today."

You bet; and I think Microsoft knew back then that they were running up against a wall with a gui pasted onto DOS. I also think NT was overdue when it hit in 1993.

As far as boot times, my 486 takes awhile too by the time it goes thru the config.sys and autoexec.bat files and everything gets loaded. I've seen some XP machines that were almost as quick. That thing was an old corporate laptop and when I got it and config.sys/autoexec.bat printouts were several pages long. Remember "menuitem" entries anyone?

I hate to admit it but that piece of crap called Windows 95 was a necessary step to keep Microsoft alive. Must have been quite a job fighting off CP/M, IBM, Unix, and Apple.

Skip


Report •

#8
March 5, 2010 at 00:51:15
"by 4 and a half seconds, I meant from turning the machine on to once autoexec.bat automatically ran windows (if configured that way)."

Then Win3.1 would take around 9 seconds on my box, as it takes 6 to POST and search for bootable media. Windows 7 takes 22 seconds to reach the desktop from power on. Don't know about you, but I'd rather wait the extra 13s for an OS that can actually do...stuff.

"I was exaggerating a little bit when I said minutes, but it does take at least about 50 seconds or longer."

Still too long. You need to find out what's eating your CPU/memory at startup before you go on wishing for MS to bring Win3x back to life. :-)

"I hate to admit it but that piece of crap called Windows 95 was a necessary step to keep Microsoft alive."

Win95 wasn't that bad.
It made a PC out of me. I was pretty much a Mac user during the DOS/Win3x days. I had a 486 tower for gaming, but did all of my work on a Mac IIsi. The day I saw Win95 on a Pentium with an MPEG board and accelerated graphics, the Mac in me shriveled up and died. :)

Turbocharged 939 | Dual-core Opteron 185 @ 3.2GHz | 2x 8800GTS in SLI | 4GB PC3200 @ CL2 | A8N32-SLI Deluxe |1TB | PCI-E X-Fi Titanium Pro | Swan D1080MKII + Dayton 10" 125w sub | W7 Ultimate


Report •

#9
March 5, 2010 at 16:09:10
>>>"I also think NT was overdue when it hit in 1993."<<<

Yep, and I'd bet it would have been sooner had it not been for M$ having so many resources tied up in getting OS/2 going. They basically walked away from IBM with what would have been OS/2 v3, tweaked and finished it, and renamed it Windows NT 3.1. They never planned on Windows 3.0 being the hit that it was back in '90, and then saw the mess they had gotten themselves into with IBM and decided to split...


Report •

Ask Question