Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Discontinues Windows 3.x
rugatero writes "The BBC reports that, as of last Saturday, Microsoft is no longer issuing licenses for the 18-year-old Windows 3.x. Many here may well be surprised to learn that anyone still has use for the antiquated software, but it seems to have found a home in a number of embedded systems — including cash registers and the in-flight entertainment systems on some long-haul passenger jets (Virgin and Qantas are cited). Considering Linux's credentials as an embedded OS, this news could very well indicate the possibility of more migrations in the pipeline."
That explains why I've taken 4 qantas flights in the past year and the inflight entertainment system hasn't worked once..
Now that's a ROFL.
"WARNING - The system is either busy or has become unstable."
An error has occurred in this application. Close / Ignore
Windows 3.1 was full of random errors and crashes.
OS/2 1.3 lived on for many years in ATM machines. Unlike Windows 3.1x, it was considered the most rock solid 16 bit OS out there. What did a majority of the machines get replaced with?... oh Windows.
I flew Cathay Pacific recently, and they were using Linux for their in-flight entertainment too (my screen was stuck in standby at the start of the flight, so I got to see it reboot).
Unstable? Maybe to your average Joe Luser who, ignorant of computers, let programs install all kinds of crap in CONFIG.SYS, AUTOEXEC.BAT and WIN.INI... Or didn't know how to properly set paths, or any one of dozens of other ways to tune his machine. But to those who did know how to tune, and how to clean up after crappy installs, Win 3.X was very stable.
I think Windows 3.X got a bad rep because, unlike vanilla DOS systems, you actually had to know what you were doing to set everything up properly. Few people bothered.
Wasn't the coax itself limiting speed, it was the NICs. NC2000s only supported 2Mbps.
SkiFree
http://ski.ihoc.net/
You still need a copy, which is sort of the problem, but DOSbox supports Win3.1
Actually, Windows 3.x is not OS, it is the window manager for MS-DOS what is the OS. On windows 95 the some OS parts were replaced from MS-DOS with Windows GUI, so the Windows became part of OS. Then Microsoft integrated browser libraries to OS and the bad security began right there. Now Microsoft has removed the graphical subsystem from OS and browser too, so NT6 is the first OS what is a truly secure, so Vista users does not get so much malware on their system!
Linux is samekind, it is just a monolith OS. But it does have simple framebuffer to draw graphics but systems what use Linux OS, does not include graphic systems as part of OS.
> I'm curious what you think is a useful application on windows 3.1 that we magically somehow don't have an equivalent of. What do you have in mind?
Although that is more a DOS than a Win domain, there are many old controller cards for machines, radio equipment, measurement solutions etc. Those things were custom-built. A few dozen to a few hundred might exist world-wide. The software is often even more restricted than simply 'I need OS foo'. You might need a certain serial port chip or whatever. Replacing those systems would often incur costs of six figures or more.
A friend of mine works at Rhode & Schwartz where they have to support a lot of legacy systems. They keep old hard- & software around because _really_ large customers require it. One guy still uses DOS 6.1 for his daily work (development & maintenance) and he is _important_.
Just think about all the 'OMG, we need Cobol people' stories recently.
...then what's that?
I came back from Australia two weeks ago, and Qantas entertainment system spent about half the time broken down. They even apologized for it in their announcement. Now I know why!
It might work, but I doubt you could play movies on it. That's one of the problems I have with my Windows 98 laptop. Technically it can play amy movie I throw at it, but only the MPEG and Quicktime movies play at proper speed. The rest are like watching in slow motion (10 frames per second).
>>>Windows 3.x is a lean, stable, functional, and secure OS!
NONE of the DOS-based Windows (1,2,3,95,98/me) were stable. They were kludges sitting on top of an ancient DOS, trying to be a Mac-like environment.
The only truly stable Windows were the NT-based ones (including XP) which were built from the ground up.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Win3.1 did not have BSOD!
Informative????? Try incorrect!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsK7TZhomE
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
'Redundant' ? 'Pixilated' has a different meaning to 'pixelated'.
Squirrel!
NONE of the DOS-based Windows (1,2,3,95,98/me) were stable. They were kludges sitting on top of an ancient DOS, trying to be a Mac-like environment.
Wait, are you talking about MS Windows or X Windows?
Yes.
*sigh*
'Pixilated' != 'Pixelated'
Maybe next time, I'll hold up a sign saying "Did you see what I did there ?".
Squirrel!
Even in Vista, the spirit of Win3.1 still lives on in the Add Font dialog box!
(Anyone know if they've updated that yet in Windows 7?)
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.