Comments on: Microsoft Says Goodbye to Windows 3.x

By: just a guy

just a guy — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:10:30 +0000

To be specific.. “3.x” was never lauched. 3.0 was, 3.1, etc…

So perhaps this is 18 years after the launch of 3.0?

By: Pudifoot

Pudifoot — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:20:15 +0000

Citizens! The cruelty of the old Windows is a thing of the past!
Let a whole new wave of cruelty wash over this lazy land!

By: filtow

filtow — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:34:58 +0000

As long as I still have my AOL chatrooms and Geocities homepages, I don’t mind. Web 0.5 FOREVER.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:06:38 +0000

Just 18 years ago? I thought it was older than that.

The funny thing is that Apple’s Macintosh System 6 predated Windows 3 by two years, and surpassed Windows 95 in usability. Or maybe that isn’t so funny.

I’ve still got several old Macs that run System 6 & 7; it’s good to boot one up every now & then just as a reminder of how far things have advanced.

By: mrmuggles

mrmuggles — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:30:02 +0000

Ah yeah, windows 3.1… The first OS I used to go on the Internet. With trumpet winsock, archie, bss… Netscape 1.0, with the gray backgrounds!

By: SuperJdynamite

SuperJdynamite — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:17:42 +0000

I’m pretty sure that Windows 3.x reached EOL (end of life) years ago. Generally versions of Windows have roughly a five year life cycle. That’s been stretched out as of late because there was a lot of kvetching when MS tried to EOL 90s era OS’s and VB6 applications, but it doesn’t go all the way back to Win 3.1.

Here’s a link to the MS lifecycle FAQ: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

By: Sofar

Sofar — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:50:20 +0000

I like anyone who uses old technology.

By: Edward

Edward — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:33:32 +0000

No sense of history in this group. Windows 3.1, and especially its network enabled version Windows for Workgroups, almost killed Apple. Two never-say-die companies that fight for pride as well as market share have resulted in ever increasing improvements for computers and hence computer users.

By: Davef

Davef — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:50:50 +0000

What people forget is that Windows 3x, it was tested for no less than 2 years prior to being let out into the public domain, even then there was 1yr in ‘beta’.

Can you actually say that with todays software? No!

In saying that, I’ve converted over to a Mac. I got sick of being tied to MS this, MS that and ActiveX which sucks!

By: Ali S.

Ali S. — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:16:48 +0000

Ah, the good ol’days. Wait a minute…no they weren’t!

By: seekshelter

seekshelter — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:14:54 +0000

Vista works fine for me… im confused by people bashing the system requirements.. computers keep getting better.. unles you haven’t bought a computer in 10 years then you shouldn’t have a problem.. and if it has been that long, you need to stop being so cheap… are people really wanting to go back to 640k ram or a 10 mhz computer?? the OS cant be blamed either… has anyone checked the system requirements for recent computer games?? regardless of what Vista adds to what the computer needs… those types of numbers really don’t make a difference nowadays. and even then.. most people dont even use their computer to its fullest…

By: Tweeker

Tweeker — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:07:18 +0000

Vista will be an utter dog with less than 2GB. Its the above alleged system requirements which ruined Vista’s reputation.

By: chech

chech — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:48:43 +0000

The tech specs may have changed but I’m willing to bet that at least some of the archaic Windows 3 code is still in Vista (active or dormant, but probably both).

By: Gail Pink

Gail Pink — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:04:58 +0000

Good riddance to bad rubbish, as the saying goes!