Hi, yes, I think i's rather thin client friendly because of that.
It also has at least two different types of swap files (temporary, fixed and none) and multiple ways to access HDD (DOS, BIOS, Windows HDD driver).
A fourth way is via SmartDrive, if that counts as its own access method, too.
Then it can run via WIN /2 in Standard-Mode, which often still works on troublesome hard- and software onfigurations.
Then there's also a limited compatibility with Win32 applications through Win32s add-on.

Well for now there is at least ZORK...

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025/11/micros … er-mit-license/

^ I really like it how the symbolic picture shows an Amiga version of the Infocom interpreter! 😁
The white on blue and the text font used on Amiga does contribute something to the atmosphere, I think.

Lualb wrote on 2025-11-28, 23:49:

Hello! I've been reading your comments, and I really appreciate each one. I'd like to add something: As you'll notice, Windows 3.1 is a very flexible operating environment compared to Windows 9x. If you install DOS 7.10 on a USB drive and type "WIN", it will automatically boot into Windows 3.1 without much trouble. So, Windows 3.1 is pre-optimized to boot on modern hardware with BIOS support and a fairly fast CPU—things that, for example, Windows 95 or 98 wouldn't do, and if they did, they would quickly break.

I don't recall having any success on booting Win3.1 installed on USB stick in 386 Enhanced Mode. Even with DOS 7.1 I still need it installed on hard disk. With SATA in AHCI mode the AHCIFIX.386 driver (maybe AHCIFIXD.SYS also) would be needed.

The main issue with Win3.1 is memory management, namely how Program Manager renders program group icons. The 256MB memory limit (or 1GB with PageOverCommit=1) is not the most important issue as it can be easily worked around.

And there are operations during graphical setup phase that would need a lot of conventional memory, and would throw errors if you're running low on it. I think having around ~580KB would be safe. For those operations, the amount of XMS/EMS you have doesn't matter. An example would be: on Win3.1 English with Japanese Support (3.10.165), with about 540KB of conventional memory (using Win3.x HIMEM which limited XMS to 64MB), setup threw "not enough memory" errors when combining Japanese fonts (MS Gothic and Mincho), so program group names in Program Manager were rendered in small fonts that's kind of unreadable. Reinstalled the system with about 588KB of conventional memory available, thanks to LIMITMEM, HIMEM (DOS 7.1) and EMM386 (NOEMS), that part completed without issues, and everything looks correct.

PS: It should be noted that Winfile had serious issues if using a DOS extender other than MS's own (DOSX). It's actually possible to run Win3.1 in Standard Mode on top of HX DOS Extender, but Winfile will crash the whole system with some register outputs as soon as it's opened. Winfile had been open-sourced, however.

^ That's a very interesting detail, indeed. I didn't know that before.
Because when I've used Windows 3.10, there merely were two popular Windows drivers that played a role:
- Standard VGA in 640x480 pixels 16c
- Super VGA in 800x600 pixels 16c (good for office works)

Sure, there were users who ran Windows in 1600x1200 pixels resolution. With up to 15 or 16-Bit colour depth or so.
But in practice, who required that, considering the performance impact on ISA bus?

I can think of..
- CAD (but that merely needs 16 to 256c, unless rendering is involved)
- photo editing (highest colour depth recommended, screen resolution depends on monitor size)
- displaying Kodak PhotoCDs (hghest colour depth+resolution recommended)
- desktop publishing (sharp, steady text and clip arts)
- multimedia/video editing (above PAL/NTSC res and 65535 or more colours)
- playback of VideoCDs/CD-is (640x480 res and 256c and higher colour depth)
- video chat/communications (via ISDN etc, early webcams were monochrome though)

Then, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 came along and included an 256c SuperVGA driver for 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768 pix resolution.

Sure, then-new PCI graphics cards featured lots of video RAM and simultanous high resolutions/high colour depths.
Like those Matrox cards that come to mind right now..

So 16-Bit or 24-Bit graphics actually existed on Windows 3.x.
However, how common was that? And at which point Windows 9x or NT took the lead? 🤷‍♂️
I seriously don't remember right now. To me, as far as I remember, Windows 3.1x and Windows 3.x software often aimed for 256c colour depth (supported palette and colour cycling).
While some poor souls were still stuck with basic VGA on Windows 3.1x at the time.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-11-28, 20:05:

Yes, in very simplified terms. In about same amount that Windows 95 is a shell. ;) […]
Show full quote

Peter Swinkels wrote on 2025-11-28, 18:49:

Windows 3.1 isn't an operating system, it's a shell.

Yes, in very simplified terms. In about same amount that Windows 95 is a shell. 😉

(Long story: Win3 has a scheduler, message-based multitasking, its own memory managment, a printer spooler, a V86 monitor in 386 Enhanced-Mode, its own executable format etc pp.)

(PS: Oh, and WABI runs the Windows 3.1 386 kernal directly on *nix, without DOS.
DOS applications require DOSemu or something else to be run from WABI.)

You got a point there, but unlike Windows 3.1 9x comes preinstalled on top of DOS and needs to be manually removed which kind of a hack and unsupported. The former is something optional on top of DOS. Also going to DOS-mode isn't quite the in 9x same as exiting Windows 3.1. (Long files no longer supported for one.) I'll admit there are arguments to be made for Windows 3.1 being an OS but I maintain it's a shell. Windows 9x is closer to being an actual OS instead of something on top of a pre-existing OS. Also, I fail to see what purpose a modified Windows 3.1 could possibly serve. To get it to do anyhting useful in a modern sense you will need to modify it to the extreme.

The former is something optional on top of DOS.

Hi, yes. For the first time, Windows 95 was a bundle of DOS and Windows that felt like a full operating system.
But I think that with Windows for Workgoups 3.11, at very least, MS-DOS 6.22 was often included in the package.
Both products were sold shrink-wrapped together into a bundle - and the MS-DOS 6.2x disk set did include Windows 3.1x utilities such as smartmon.exe.
So both MS-DOS and Windows were products made for each other, I think.
In principle, I think, this started with MS-DOS 5 already. MS-DOS 5 had WINA20.386 on Disk #1, which was needed for Windows 3.0 (for 386 Enhanced-Mode).

Edit: Picture added. That's what I meant. These bundles were often sold as bulk/OEM ware.
On the backside of the manual there used to be the certificate and a paper bag/mail bag
with the end user license printed on it and the disk set inside.
Though there also were Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS 6.x bundles, it seems. Not sure about earlier bundles, though.
In Windows 2.0 and 3.0 days, the Microsoft products were simply included as separate products in the same box of a new PC?

Edit:

I'll admit there are arguments to be made for Windows 3.1 being an OS but I maintain it's a shell.

I do understand that. I tend to refer to Windows 3.x and older as "graphical environment" nowadays.
Also because it used to be written on the box of Windows 3.0 and in the splash screen of Windows 3.0 MME! :D

As far as Windows 9x goes.. Not sure. For 30 years people do debate now whether it's an OS or not. And the OS/2 fans used to make fun of it, too. ;)
To me, it falls into same category of DESQView/X, maybe.
It's a V86 hypervisor with a GUI and the ability to run Win16/Win32 and DOS applications.

Fair point, true MS-DOS 5.0 and 6.22 came packaged with Windows. Just for the record, a decent XT class machine could run MS-DOS 6.22 on its own okay.

I read about people claiming Windows 3.1 would make a neat basis for some minimalist system. I bet that when you're done modifying it you essentially have something you'd get if you stripped down a modern Windows. A quick search told me there is something like Tiny11 based on Windows 11.

keenmaster486 wrote on 2025-11-28, 15:23:

They will never release something someone could use to make a better OS than Windows 11.

That's a rather low bar don't you think? a potato is a better OS then 11 🤣

I love how this "is windows an OS" debate started 45 years ago and there's still no resolution 🤣

Jo22 wrote on Yesterday, 15:10:

Hi, yes. For the first time, Windows 95 was a bundle of DOS and Windows that felt like a full operating system. But I think that […]
Show full quote

The former is something optional on top of DOS.

Hi, yes. For the first time, Windows 95 was a bundle of DOS and Windows that felt like a full operating system.
But I think that with Windows for Workgoups 3.11, at very least, MS-DOS 6.22 was often included in the package.
Both products were sold shrink-wrapped together into a bundle - and the MS-DOS 6.2x disk set did include Windows 3.1x utilities such as smartmon.exe.
So both MS-DOS and Windows were products made for each other, I think.
In principle, I think, this started with MS-DOS 5 already. MS-DOS 5 had WINA20.386 on Disk #1, which was needed for Windows 3.0 (for 386 Enhanced-Mode).

Edit: Picture added. That's what I meant. These bundles were often sold as bulk/OEM ware.
On the backside of the manual there used to be the certificate and a paper bag/mail bag
with the end user license printed on it and the disk set inside.
Though there also were Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS 6.x bundles, it seems. Not sure about earlier bundles, though.
In Windows 2.0 and 3.0 days, the Microsoft products were simply included as separate products in the same box of a new PC?

Edit:

I'll admit there are arguments to be made for Windows 3.1 being an OS but I maintain it's a shell.

I do understand that. I tend to refer to Windows 3.x and older as "graphical environment" nowadays.
Also because it used to be written on the box of Windows 3.0 and in the splash screen of Windows 3.0 MME! 😁

As far as Windows 9x goes.. Not sure. For 30 years people do debate now whether it's an OS or not. And the OS/2 fans used to make fun of it, too. 😉
To me, it falls into same category of DESQView/X, maybe.
It's a V86 hypervisor with a GUI and the ability to run Win16/Win32 and DOS applications.

9x was an os in its own right.
Dos was there in 2 forms.

One as the boot loader like grub or ntldr
One as a virtual machine not unlike dosbox.

The kernel didn't depend on dos, but it could use dos interfaces, and seemed to be more dependent on it than it was which muddied the water.