Goodbye Windows 3.x

Advertisement (Why?)

Although many would agree that Windows 3.x has been dead for many years, Microsoft hammered the final nail into its coffin early this week.

The Redmond based software company stopped issuing licences for the Windows 3.x operating systems on 1st November 2008. Microsoft maintained support for Windows 3.x until the end of 2001, and it has lived on as an embedded operating system until 1st November 2008.

Windows 3.0 was originally released on May 22nd 1990. 3.0 came with a lot of improvements, but also with a lack of multimedia and network features, which led to 3.0 being replaced quickly by Windows 3.1. However, the improvements that Microsoft achieved with 3.0 were impressive. The platform offered 32-bit performance, advanced graphics, and full support of the more powerful Intel 386 processor.

New features included at the time were program, file, and print managers, a completely rewritten application development environment with modular virtual device drivers (VxDs), native support for applications running in extended memory and fully pre-emptive MS-DOS multitasking. Microsoft also improved the set of Windows icons.

The program manager and file manager gave users Macintosh-like big icons to click and drag-and-drop. Although it was replaced quickly, Windows 3.0 was widely accepted and respected among third-party hardware and software developers because Microsoft released a new Windows software development kit (SDK) which enabled the developers to focus on writing applications instead of device drivers.

According to the BBC, one of its more glamorous uses as an embedded operating system is to power the in-flight entertainment systems on some Virgin and Qantas long-haul jets. Perhaps it did a better job that the more recent Linux variants, I tried checking the Football (soccer for the US folks) results and it crashed the whole thing on a recent Virgin flight from London to Los Angeles for Microsoft's PDC:

(7 replies) #1 Antaris on 05 Nov 2008 - 08:32

I miss the days of ridiculously fast booting

#1.1 creamhackered on 05 Nov 2008 - 08:34

Yeah that was one of the benefits...hopefully we'll get back to that kind of booting soon!

#1.2 michael.dobrofsky on 05 Nov 2008 - 08:45

creamhackered said,

I wouldn't hold your breath

#1.3 Divide Overflow on 05 Nov 2008 - 13:12

It appears Antaris does not recall what it was like to use Windows 3.x on a low or average specced machine from the same timeframe. :p I can recall it taking about the same amount of time to Boot into 3.1 as it does now for me to boot into Vista or Linux.

#1.4 TruckWEB on 05 Nov 2008 - 16:01

Fast booting? We are talking about the era of 386DX/33 or 486... Loading DOS, everything in the config.sys (ansi.sys, cdrom, network, Qemm386, ...) and autoexec.bat and then loading Win3.1

I don't recall it being Fast....

#1.5 Skwerl on 05 Nov 2008 - 20:51

TruckWEB said,

Whoah... The menton of Qemm386 just brought back a wave of memories. How many people remember farting around in the config.sys, turning crap off and changing values just to sequeeze out a few extra K so a DOS game could run?

#1.6 Shadrack on 06 Nov 2008 - 00:52

Seriously. Use to be the longest part of booting was the RAM check. Those 2MB would take forever to scan. This was back when the only things that started with DOS were located in your autoexec.bat and config.sys

#1.7 _dandy_ on 06 Nov 2008 - 12:56

michael.dobrofsky said,

I'd like to see that. How does one hold someone else's breath?

#2 Dannyarr on 05 Nov 2008 - 08:38

I remember using this for the first time.

How the world has changed, eh?

(2 replies) #3 gusto5 on 05 Nov 2008 - 08:49

no wonder the quantas flight personal entertainment system is always busted sometimes

#3.1 Logie on 05 Nov 2008 - 09:07

I don't think you can say 'always' and 'sometimes' in the same sentence. But I would've though that 3.x would be long gone. I've only actually seen it in the flesh once :|

#3.2 richardsim7 on 05 Nov 2008 - 09:21

Logie said,

I don't think you can say 'always' and 'sometimes' in the same sentence.

You just did

#4 ThaCrip on 05 Nov 2008 - 09:11

i cant recall that far back.

i pretty much never started using computers til 1995 (486dx2 66mhz , 4MB ram, 4xxMB hard drive, Win3.11) which was i would estimate a good 3ish years before the internet really started to go mainstream.

(11 replies) #5 JunkMail on 05 Nov 2008 - 09:32

If M$ releases W98 third edition with only stability upgrades + new hardware support, I would not touch any other OS! I remain happy with least resource hungry and good feature OS... (sadly I know I'm day dreaming). These days all OS wants to call back HOME

why? analize statistics of pirates, their dominance, more profits by turning pirates to legitimate users, help protect the interest ($s) of company? RIAA? MPAA? Country?

I don't know whom to be blamed for this, Bin Laden for making "them" feel insecure, or the rich parent's dogs and brats (Singers, engineers, actors) who jointly didn't like getting less money for what they invested in universities resulting in --> (RIAA & MPAA) or perhaps bad polliticians who feel they should control the planet...

#5.1 Pandya on 05 Nov 2008 - 09:37

wut

#5.2 TRC on 05 Nov 2008 - 09:56

Wow, that post went into all kinds of crazy.

#5.3 Tantawi on 05 Nov 2008 - 12:13

You need help!

#5.4 Roadrunna on 05 Nov 2008 - 12:34

Bin Laden must be the new Godwin's Law

#5.5 Divide Overflow on 05 Nov 2008 - 13:18

From Win 3.1 to Osama in two paragraphs FLAT! That must be some kind of a record.

#5.6 afusion on 05 Nov 2008 - 15:08

Divide Overflow said,

Bin Laden uses Mac OS X

#5.7 C_Guy on 05 Nov 2008 - 20:49

I stopped reading after the spelling mistake. If you can't spell properly past the second word then why should anyone bother reading the rest?

#5.8 Skwerl on 05 Nov 2008 - 20:53

WTF? Not only does it make no sense, but this could be the longest LOLcat I've seen.

#5.9 xan K on 05 Nov 2008 - 21:58

#5.10 kouhii00 on 05 Nov 2008 - 22:20

You can't just be an Engineer without A LOT of EFFORT.
If you don't know what an Engineer is/does please refrain from posting.

#5.11 Airlink on 06 Nov 2008 - 09:15

I'm just going to back slowly away from Mr. "JunkMail" and hope he doesn't notice me. :whistle:

(4 replies) #6 Slugsie on 05 Nov 2008 - 09:35

I don't recall Windows 3.0 or 3.1 coming with 32bit support natively. I know there was an installable add-on that came out not long before Win95 that gave 32bit support, but virtually nothing made use of it.

#6.1 slinky333 on 05 Nov 2008 - 09:39

Also I think it had cooperative multitasking, not preemptive.

#6.2 testman on 05 Nov 2008 - 09:55

slugsie said,

You're talking about Win32s giving Windows 3 32-bit APIs. It didn't really give it proper 32-bit support though because not all 32-bit apps would work with Win32s.

#6.3 TRC on 05 Nov 2008 - 10:01

Nope, I never had much luck with it. Windows NT 3.51 is a better solution for old computers, being a true 32-bit OS and being able to run most Windows 95 programs even though it uses the Windows 3.1 interface. A lot of programs still work fine on it, I think Firefox does.

I still remember buying a copy of Windows 3.1 for my old Zenith 286; going from plain MS-DOS to a graphical interface was amazing at the time. I still have the 5.25" disks to this day. Had no idea they were still selling it, even if it was just for embedded uses.

#6.4 Slugsie on 05 Nov 2008 - 11:11

testman said,

Yup, that is what I meant, I just couldn't recall what it was called. Ta.

#7 sentio on 05 Nov 2008 - 10:48

R.I.P.

(1 reply) #8 Foub on 05 Nov 2008 - 10:54

Why were they still issuing licenses until now in the first place? Its not as if it actually needed one to run.

The good old days before the total nonsense of activation.....

#8.1 qbie on 05 Nov 2008 - 11:03

Yes, but large companies like that wouldn't want to run it without a license, lest they feel the wrath of MS's legal department.

Just because you don't need a keycode doesn't make it right to pirate it.

#9 Soldiers33 on 05 Nov 2008 - 11:16

omg people actually still used this?

#10 cork1958 on 05 Nov 2008 - 11:31

Never even seen this thing, Windows 3x, that is.

Couldn't figure out any use for a home computer until AFTER Windows 95 came out, and then it took quite a bit of prodding from my wife to get the first computer. A Cyrix 486DX with 48mb's memory. Upgraded that when purchased.

Man!
Has my wife ever regretted talking me into getting one!!

(1 reply) #11 AnthoWin on 05 Nov 2008 - 11:34

I like that Windows logo better than Vista/7!

#11.1 Archangel Tyrael on 05 Nov 2008 - 11:47

I have to agree...that logo feels so classic..

#12 morcey on 05 Nov 2008 - 12:04

I remember reading that Segmentation Fault error when I used work with link lists and binary search tree using C++, 'Great Memories'

#13 Magallanes on 05 Nov 2008 - 12:25

Goodbye 16bits.

(1 reply) #14 JunkMail on 05 Nov 2008 - 12:32

It takes buttload of quality time (in your head) to do the time travel and post things like that

#14.1 creamhackered on 05 Nov 2008 - 12:54

All the stuff about 3.0 came from my Windows History article I posted 5 years ago to Neowin. Once we have the articles section finished this will be back online with a full history of the various Windows versions.

#15 sentio on 05 Nov 2008 - 13:14

I used to love surprising family and friends by digging up the easter eggs

#16 Nelsinho on 05 Nov 2008 - 13:39

great memories no doubt hehe.

#17 +techbeck on 05 Nov 2008 - 14:08

Wow, I didnt think they sold licenses either...

I remember using DOS 5 something with Windows 3.11 and installing Windows using floppy disks. Crazy stuff.

(1 reply) #18 TC17 on 05 Nov 2008 - 15:45

There was nothing good about Windows 3.1, and I don't miss it.

I don't recall Windows 3.1 requiring a "license". I think I still have it laying around somewhere on its 3.5" floppy drives.

#18.1 TRC on 05 Nov 2008 - 23:38

Of course it did: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/83926

They really had no way to enforce it though in those days. No copy protection of any kind.

#19 +majortom1981 on 05 Nov 2008 - 16:19

I think windows 3.1 is still run on embeded devices and stuff. I think some boot disks and stuff use it for recovery software and things like that.

(1 reply) #20 SirEvan on 05 Nov 2008 - 16:38

RIP...this was the first OS i ever used back in the day, well at least on a PC....used to own a TI 99/4A but that didn't really have a n OS to speak of....ran on cartridges.

#20.1 TRC on 05 Nov 2008 - 23:37

It sort of had an OS; it booted up to a version of Microsoft BASIC if you turned it on with no cartridge in. Typing in long programs out of a book is one of the few things I don't miss about those days.

#21 Antaris on 05 Nov 2008 - 16:58

Lol, found a first look review of Windows 3.1:

http://www.melbpc.org.au/pcupdate/9200/9205article5.htm

(1 reply) #22 +Echilon on 05 Nov 2008 - 17:30

I miss installing software from a box of floppies.

#22.1 Tha Bloo Monkee on 05 Nov 2008 - 20:02

I don't, lol

#23 Sigmatic.Minor on 05 Nov 2008 - 20:51

hahaha geez... i still remember the windows 2 days!!!!

ahhh memories...

#24 C_Guy on 05 Nov 2008 - 20:51

Ahhhhh, where it all started. It seems like a lifetime ago we were using Windows 3.

#25 +Dale on 05 Nov 2008 - 23:01

fun times... figuring out how to play video games one that rig when I was 5.. Some games I needed to go into DOS mode and type in commands where others i could go into the File Manager and click on the .exe... where others needed boot discs to run.. I learnt most of what I understand about computers today with what i knew back then..

#26 TRC on 05 Nov 2008 - 23:34

I still think computing was more fun back then. I still remember discovering how to use the PC-DOS driveparm utility to override my old computers floppy controller card and let me use 3.5" floppy disks. Something the "expert" at the computer store said was impossible. There was no internet to look it up on, just the DOS help program.

#27 winrez on 05 Nov 2008 - 23:58

I miss the days on the BBS downloading a bmp file of cindy crawford in a swimsuit and it would take a hour or downloading wolfenstein 3d and getting the ripper virus

I still think the 3.x ms paint is better than the current one

Last edited by winrez on 06 Nov 2008 - 00:05

#28 UKer on 06 Nov 2008 - 15:44

This article just made me look at some old screenshots of 3.x, brought back some great memories of when OSs were so simple and the look of old screenshots made me really reminisce! Those days are long gone though, thankfully now we have operating systems that make out day-to-day lives so easy, although I wish computers were as new and amazing as they were in 1990.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net