First of all, I don't want to get flamed or anyting. But I was just curious, with so many newer versions of Windows, why stick with 3.1?

What, you're writing a book?

;-)

Try running Win95 on a 386, for instance.
It gets the job done, and isn't quite the resource hog later versions are - how much computing power do you need to run notepad or to play solitaire?

I'm curious too... why does this particular question come up, time and time again?

I use it on a computer i found in the trash (486) I use it as a file server on my network. You think thats bad I have a 286 laptop running Win 2.11. But I also have a P133 running 95&Linux. A PII 400 running 98. A 1.1GHz Duron running XP,Linux,BeOS&QNX. So you see as for me I like operating systems. And i cant get rid of old computers either.

Don't want to get flammed do you? Then why invite it with such a stupid question? Most people i know use it on their 2nd or 3rd system, older machines. Anything else?

It's because I've had some bad experiences with Win 3.1. Also, since Win95-98-ME-XP came out, which simplified everything, I didn't understand why people still kept the older OS. It's a not "stupid" question, just curiosity. Besides, why are you so defensive?

Dear n3985:

I think people here are easily offended, because so many times before (if you have ever visited teh windows 3.1x board before), people have very inconsiderately & ignorantly proceeded to put down windows 3.1x, without even knowing the facts. True, the newer operating systems are far easier to use (especially 2000 & XP, both of which I own); however 2 drawbacks that I can think of are:

#1) it makes your mind "lazy", as it does everything for you (no thinking involved). is this a good thing? kind of like using a calculator to add 2+2.

#2) it requires that you upgrade your computer hardware, in order to meet the minimum requirements to run the particular operating system (XP, for example, requires 233MMX w/64MB RAM, although 128MB is more realistic).

People out there who like to tinker (like me!) and who still like to keep their minds active (like me!) and who like to be able to tweak their systems to the max (like me!), without having to download utilities that others have written - just to have them do the work for you and defeating the purpose of "tinkering" - are diehard windows 3.1x fans & fanatics, and as long as we keep it alive, then the roots of computing & the PC will never die.

Youch, that was kind of like a sermon LOL! All in all, just my 2 cents worth...

James C.

Well, if something simple works, why not use it? I still run DOS too, (naturally) mainly for the control it gives.

I'm not even all that fond of Win3xx - it certainly does have its bugs, but on my dual-boot Win95/DOS622 machine, it's nice to use WinZip for the LFN support. I still boot to the old DOS because it provides better support for the old games - with plenty of resources to spare on my less than state-of-the-art Pentium1.

Plus, there's *scads* of free software available for Win31 nowadays.

But seriously - this question gets asked at least every other week or so - why use anything? Just because something is new does not make it necessarily better - the main thing is that it meets your needs and does the job required.
Do most people *need* XP - probably not, same as most folks don't need an 80 Gb HDD or a 2 GHz processor.

OK, my question is answered. Thanks for the explanations, now was that so hard? Thank goodness not everyone is like Lightspeed.

I get the feeling this question pops up frequently because its coming from the same lame person. Again, why do you dummies keep trying to answer it? He could do a search on this forum & get the answer its been asked so much.

I think the most overwhelming reason to use win3.1 would be if you have an old computer that is too slow to run anything faster than win31, and it makes no sense to sell an old 386 computer for $20 or so when the most common uses of a computer (word processing and email) don't require a 2.4GHz processor (regardless of what microsoft wants you to think)

I agree with response 5. The reason some of us go nuts at the questions is because the are frequently asked by people saying: "Why do you idiots still use 3.1? It can't run anything and XP is sooooo much better!!!" etc... So some people now even go nuts at the subject line "Why use 3.1" even before reading the post. It's pretty rare to get a genuinely curious question like this, so many don't believe it. Try a search in the 3.1 forum for something like "Why use 3.1" or "Why still use 3.1" and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Personally, I'm running XP (with the pre-school interface disabled), 2000, and 98, on one PC, and 95, NT 3.51, and Win 3.11/DOS 6.22 on the other. Win 3.11 and NT 3.51 are much faster than 95 (on 133Mhz 32MB RAM) and can do most of what I need to do. I haven't booted into 95 in months, other than to setup a new printer on the network. I also like 3.1 because it was the first version of Windows I learned on, and have always liked it. And, it interesting to find out how many things there are that can still be done in Windows 3.1.

Stupid people continue to try to answer stupid questions!

If you're so annoyed, why bother to leave a message?

n3985: I'm interested to see that you say Win95-98-ME-XP "simplified everything".

I like to use a mix of keyboard shortcuts alongside the mouse, and Win3.1x is more consistent across apps than Win9x+. That makes my life simpler. Personally, I have no need for the Calmira shell, and prefer my own way of operating.

In terms of keeping the OS ticking over, I detest the scattergun distribution of files in Win9x and the amount of info/control hidden from the user.

I'm not keen on joining the Reinstall-Your-OS Club's monthly meetings...

Oh! for the simple life.

Hey Lightspeed: nice Web site (sheesh! All those links make me want to put DOS back on my two PCs. Ahhh, those were the days! Keep supplying those links.).

Why Windows 3.x? Simple. It's familiar territory!

I have a running argument with a friend of mine over operating systems. Which is better: Mac or PC? But ultimately we reach this same conclusion: the best system is the one where the user is most productive. :o)

Think of this: Each time a corporation upgrades its software or operating system for something "better", it's a guaranteed loss:

1) they pay to provide for the upgrades (which usually requires more expensive hardware);

2) they pay to provide staff with training. This is often inadequate leaving the users confused about how the new systems/software work(s).

3) Too often the training comes too soon before or too late after the software arrives resulting in the loss of productivity either way.

Odd that an upgrade should result in losses and not gains. And gain is certainly the motto of most companies. :o\

Not only for you, n3985, but for future readers searching through posts on this board: someone who's worked steadily on Windows 3.1 for the last 10 years will be far more familiar with his/her system than most current Windows XP users are with theirs.

Rather than "Why still use 3.1?", shouldn’t the question be what Microsoft's been pushing since the release of Windows95: "Where do you want to go today?" I don't know about you, but I couldn't get "there" on the best Macintosh or iMac myself... in spite of what the Mac enthusiasts say. That's because I don't know how to use them at all.

Some people (see responses 5 & 10) love to tinker with a number of Microsoft operating systems. But there are people out there who are still on somewhat shaky ground with their Windows 3.1 setups... even after all these years. In many cases it may be because they are more familiar with their software (MS Word 5) than their OS.

This isn't a Windows 3.1 issue exclusively. As I mentioned earlier: whether it is MacOS, Linux, DOS, Win3.x, Win9x, etc... if you jump from one thing to another, even if the "other" is "better", it's still different and therefore unfamiliar territory.

So what is better? Productivity in Windows 3.1, or confusion in Windows 98SE? Because many users focus mainly on their applications instead of messing with their operating systems that’s the real issue. So let’s be productive with what we have... even if it’s only a typewriter. ;o)

P.S. Lightspeed: don’t let it bother you. If we answer the question well, it will eventually cease being asked. ;o)

XP sucks. DOS rules. Win95 is okay. If anyone disagrees...I don't care.

"If we answer the question well, it will cease being asked" That is the biggest JOKE I have ever read. This question will be asked as long as the Windows 3.1 forum stays up. Only people refine the question now, trying not to insult to much because they know if they do the thread will be deleted. The poster is just like all the other screwballs who have nothing better to do but ask the same question over & over again when you can do a search on the forum & find the answer, which has been answered well time & time again. People wake up & IGNORE.

Um... obsess much?

As I said in a previous post of similar matter:
'cos I want to,that's all¡
I have two PC's running XP,and a nice 386 running 3.x,and I find old OS's very charming,and worthy to be used in any way you want it.
Maybe I have to answer to you with another answer:Why not?
The same if other people chooses to use another non-micro$oft OS's,its just freedom of choice.

Because that is what the hardware will run.

The lowest 3.1 machine I have is a 286-16
with 4 meg ram and 60 mb mfm hard drive.
It is used with Excel.

The longest running 3.1 machine in the office
is a 486SL2-50 with 16 mb ram it has been
running since 1995 when the hard drive was
upgraded. 3.1 is used mostly as a shell for
Word Perfect 5.1 and Lotus 123 r2.3.

I have just come into a bunch of 386sx16-20
laptops with 2-4-6-8 megs of ram and not
upgradeable. I'm trying to convert then to
e-book readers. Anyone know of a Microsoft
LIT Reader and An Adobe PDF Reader that will
work in either DOS or Win 3.1?? The old
Adobe DOS PDF reader will not open the new
version PDF files.

Why we use it, because it's there and
sometimes it's the only thing that will work.

Nobody mentioned the fact that there are many programs that just won't run properly or at all on 9xx.
Our 486 running 3.11 is a treasure-house of children's games, efficient word processors, understandable graphics programs, and links to CDs that 9xx sneer at.
My particular favourite is PaintBrush--which I have in 98 running under an assumed name so that Paint will allow it to run.
Also, Write reads more formats--in my experience--than the slow-loading WordPad.

As for response 19, you can get Acrobat Reader 3.01 from the Win 3.1 section of my website. It'll view most/all of the newer PDF files that I have seen.

LMAO as for responce 14 with the

"So what is better? Productivity in Windows 3.1, or confusion in Windows 98SE? Because many users focus mainly on their applications instead of messing with their operating systems that’s the real issue. So let’s be productive with what we have... even if it’s only a typewriter. ;o)"

Sorry pull anyone off the streets right now and sit them in front of a 3.x PC and see how productive they are.

Just say it man... Its because your PC's are 386's that will only run 3.x and you dont want to upgrade them.

No this is not a bash on 3.x, I happen to like it myself.

It goes either way. Sit someone in front of a 9x/XP PC who has only used Windows 3.1, and see how productive they are. It's not just because "our PC's are 386's that will only run 3.x and we dont want to upgrade them." At least not for all 3.1 users.

To response # 22. I have two pentium pc's with loads of ram that could run Windows 95 or 98 with no problems but I choose to run Windows 3.1 on one & Windows NT 3.1 on the other. Its not because our pc's wont run anything else. I hate ignorant people.

I never used win3.1 when it was a new software environment...i was a dedicated MAC user till os 8 came out...I wanted a new pc, so I got one with Win98...then I got a 486 that couldn't handle win98 very well...and I didn't have win95...so I downloaded win3.1 and learned how to use it....and in all honesty I thought it was easy to use, so i never quit using it...I mean, i have every version of windows made...if 3.1 ever fails me, I can always upgrade

Alright, Don! Three cheers for a Mac user who migrated to Windows 3.1 and is still using it.

;o)

Sorry. The above comment was borne from many arguments I had with my Mac-using friend. (See response Number 14). BTW, I introduced him to Mandrake Linux 8.2 and he's just gone nuts. Loves it and is dual booting WinXP and Linux.

I didn't think Windows 3.1 was a bore. I got to know it well and helped my friends out with their setups. They were interested in getting their applications working well. When I helped out by tweaking Windows to near perfection they experienced less crashes and were more productive.

Productivity is the key.

Ok Simms.. responce 24 Go back and read my post ... it had nothing to do with you or your PC's that can run a O/S. So is there a reasone you bashed me?

your statment of "I hate ignorant people." Aplies here.

Read my whole post!

"No this is not a bash on 3.x, I happen to like it myself." quote taken from me last post #22

Why Use 3.1? Many Reasons!

1. 3.1 Runs efficiently on anything from a 386SX/25MHz W/4MB RAM To an AMD Athlon XP 2100 2/4GHz W/2 GB RAM. Personally, I run Windows ME for the reason that my parents like it, but I have a special bootdisk that will automatically boot up Windows 3.1 on my PC. (I keep it in my Hard Drive, have no better use for a 60GB Drive.)

2. 3.1 is a simple OS. The problem with new OS software is that it is wither too hard or too easy. Example: Windows 98. I used 95B pretty much all my life. Then we got a new PC with 98-SE. Even this "Slight" change confused me. Also, Windows XP home is too dummied-up. It's basically NT with a 2 year old's UI welded onto it. I mean really, do I need a stupid Agent character in my search window, or some webby thing for a login prompt?

3. It runs many good older apps.
I can buy an old 486DX/50 With 16MB RAM and a 1/2 GB HDD, install 3.1/DOS 6.22on it, hook up a decent color printer, install Word 6.0, Publisher 2.0, Access 2.0 With Y2k update, Excel 4, and Netscape NavGold 3.04, and it will purr like a kitten. I could even install some nice programs like Print Shop.

4. Personal Preference
Someone may prefer any OS over others. Some may like Win 2.03, some may be right at home on MacOS 7.53, and some of us like 3.1, oh, and some small childern (or childern at heart and mind) like stock XP with the toy UI.

Just my $0.25
DF

Note that is is possible to disable the pre-school UI in XP and make it look nearly identical to 98/2000... Although Win 3.1 is still faster than XP, at least on my PCs. (Just about anything is, actually... [3.1/95/98/2000, etc..])

Did u know that this question has gotten 30 hits in the past 2 hours. Why answer this question...he knows the answer. Some people like an easy system or just like to use as a backup for word or as a work computer. The program im sure does not cost much..if u can still buy it and you don't neeed a fast computer to operate it. Everone has the own reasons. Ok ;o)

Yes 30 hits in 9 days and 3 hour!

Just what I bet this n3985 expected. Whenever someone does a post on this topic it receives many responses. Like someone said above, dont know why people continue to waste there time & continually try to answer it. No one seems to be able to ignore it & go on & try to answer a question in this forum that is productive & can actually help someone. Why do you people try to answer it time & time again? I believe it strikes a nerve or something?

I wish whenever I had a problem with my 3.1 pc I would get these many responses after I posted. My pc would stay in tip top shape!! I've never managed to get over 3 to help. Instead you guys waste time on crap like this. I just went down the 3.1 forum & this dumb thread has gotten the most responses. You people are so childish.

LETS JUST MAKE A "WHY DO WE USE WINDOWS 3.1 FORUM" & LET WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER IT POST THERE & LEAVE THIS FORUM FOR COMPUTER RELATED MATERIAL.

I quit wasting time answering n3985's question a long time ago. I've just be responding to other people's comments. But for a lot of people, this kind of question does strike a nerve. I used to rant on and on and on about why I use it and why it isn't any of their buisness what we use, until it hit me that, DUH!! That's exactly what the want us to do! They are coming here to drive us nuts! And it usually works for most people.

F@ck all yall doggin windows 3.1 saying its hard to use my a$$ its better than 95 98 and i got a xp on this new one and the xp is only thing close to 3.1 cause all the other windows are just full of sh@t!

I was using WfW 3.11 (the best 3.1 version IMHO) on MS-DOS 6.22 for three years (from 1998 on), partly for reasons similar to those mentioned in response #28:
* it runs decently on older computers with not so much CPU horsepower and RAM, and pretty fast one ones with more horsepower and RAM (like a small Pentium w/ 32 megs)
* it's a rather simple OS extension, great for the "I'm the boss" feeling ;) - I never liked the somewhat strange things Win9x did at times
* its stability isn't too bad, it doesn't know these bluescreens appearing all of a sudden, like Win9x does
* With Instant File Access and Calmira, even long file names are possible, and there are lots of other useful tools

However, Win 3.1x is not really first choice for new machines for three reasons:
* Hardware support:
* Today's hard drives profit enormously from fast Ultra DMA transfer modes, while Win 3.1 is stuck with the old PIO modes set up by the BIOS (that did make a difference even with a not so new 8 GB Seagate, for example when reading the index file of my rather large INBOX folder)
* Lack of drivers for graphics cards, sound cards (trusty old ISA cards can no longer be used in boards with no ISA slots), no support for USB (not that I'd like that a lot, but still...), etc.
* The achilles heel "resource heaps" (it's really annoying if you don't get stuff done because you've run out of resources once again)
* Today's machines also run really stable operating systems like Windows 2000 quite well

Well, the latter is what spoiled me in the end - I first saw Windows 2000 on a now almost three year old notebook I bought used, on which it ran rather well. The stability amazed me, there weren't any resource shortages or similar annoyances, and hibernation (suspend to disk) turned out to be very useful. The rest was just a matter of time, since my main desktop PC isn't too old either. (Yes, I've upgraded both computers since. No, this would not have been necessary with ol' WfW.) Still, sometimes I miss the old days with WfW and Calmira - but when it gets too bad, I can still dig out one of the old boxes that run this combo :).