I still remember my first Windows computer. It was a Packard Bell with a 75 Mhz processor and Windows 3.11 installed. Packard Bell Navigator too.

I still remember using Windows 3.0 a little when it came out (started computers when DOS 3.3 was new). It wasn't until W3.1 came out that the apps for it exploded helped because of massive pirating of the OS.

I still keep many CD-ROM-based "multimedia" ebooks designed for Windows 3.1; many of them can run under Win9x but would have minor graphical alignment problems so I prefer running them under their native environment.

dormcat wrote on 2022-03-29, 22:03:

I still keep many CD-ROM-based "multimedia" ebooks designed for Windows 3.1.

That sounds great. What kind?

Although I remember using Windows 3.1 growing up, I was very young and can't remember specific software titles for this version of Windows. The vintage Windows software that I often remember is often from the 9x era, since the first personal computer I was given ran Windows 95.

I recall using AMI Pro, Excell, MS Word, Freelance graphics for Windows 3.x.

When I started collecting computers I also started picking up some boxed Office apps for Windows 3.x and also OS/2.

Oh man I was a child when we got our 3.11wfw computer I have many fond memories of that computer and OS good times.

Sorry if this sounds odd, but I find facts like these depressing. I don't like the thought of stuff I enjoy getting notably older.

Like, for example: I remember when I first played Sonic 2 on an actual Sega Genesis as a kid, the game at that time was about 15 years old. Now at the present time, Half-Life 2 is over 2 years older than that. That just feels so weird to me.

I was curious what the last version of Office is that runs on Windows 3.1. I'm surprised to find even Office 95 won't run on it, that version actually required Windows 95 (or NT 3.51).
Windows 3.1 was a whole 3 years old, or only ~6 months old to somebody who just bought it recently. Microsoft said too bad - to run the new Office now you have to buy our next brand new OS to go with it. 1990s computing was nuts.

I remember there being something annoying about early versions of Office. Something like you only had a couple of undos or maybe it was just one. Can anyone verify this?

shamino wrote on 2022-03-30, 23:15:

I was curious what the last version of Office is that runs on Windows 3.1. I'm surprised to find even Office 95 won't run on it, that version actually required Windows 95 (or NT 3.51).
Windows 3.1 was a whole 3 years old, or only ~6 months old to somebody who just bought it recently. Microsoft said too bad - to run the new Office now you have to buy our next brand new OS to go with it. 1990s computing was nuts.

TBf to MS the changes between 95 and 3.11 were huge, to the point that a lot of programs for 3.11 simply didn’t work on 95 or required workarounds.

Was worse going the other way as no 95 software could run under 3.11 unless specifically designed to do so.

Was for sure a weird time to be a pc user.

Kahenraz wrote on 2022-03-29, 23:17:

That sounds great. What kind?

Most of the earlier Microsoft Home series were designed for Windows 3.1; later titles were a bit too "fancy" i.e. emphasized too much on eye-candy sound effects and animations but with less meaningful (text) contents. Other interesting titles were from Grolier, Le Louvre, Dorling Kindersley, etc. There were even magazines reviewing those CD-ROM titles.

shamino wrote on 2022-03-30, 23:15:

I was curious what the last version of Office is that runs on Windows 3.1. I'm surprised to find even Office 95 won't run on it, that version actually required Windows 95 (or NT 3.51).
Windows 3.1 was a whole 3 years old, or only ~6 months old to somebody who just bought it recently. Microsoft said too bad - to run the new Office now you have to buy our next brand new OS to go with it. 1990s computing was nuts.

The last version(s) of MS Office on Windows 3.1 was version 4.2 Standard / 4.3 Professional (they differed only with or without Access 2.0; the rest were the same Word 6.0, Excel 5.0, and PowerPoint 4.0).

The decade from January 1992 to December 2001 was revolutionary: Windows evolved from 3.0 to XP in those ten years, and both hardware and software had giant leaps every six months. Computing between 2012 and 2021 is far less different, especially with desktop computers. Some new old stock video cards have the same or even higher prices than five years ago due to cryptocurrency boom (fortunately it's getting cooled recently); this is unthinkable in 1990s.

thepirategamerboy12 wrote on 2022-03-30, 16:01:

Sorry if this sounds odd, but I find facts like these depressing.

Nah, that's ok. It's understandable.

thepirategamerboy12 wrote on 2022-03-30, 16:01:

I don't like the thought of stuff I enjoy getting notably older.

I understand. It sometimes makes us feel obsolete, disconnected or makes us feel like an outsider.
I for one did never really fit into one generation, for example. I think I was stuck in between.
I pretty much grew up with 70s/80s tech and pop culture in the 90s, when all the cool kids were into, I don't know.. Hm. Adidas clothes? The Barbie song? Titanic movie? xD

Anyway, I got used to it eventually. I was grateful to have been allowed to grow up with a wider field of mesmerizing stuff.
Like learning to program in Basic on a 1982 machine (Sharp MZ-700) in the mid-90s.
Or my weird hot-rod 286 PC with 4MB RAM/PAS16/CD-ROM and Windows 3.1, Visual Basic 1.0 and QuickBasic 4.5..
- It even had a handy scanner (colour!) connected,
which I used to digitize photos that I had taken with my analogue film camera (Kodak film inside)!
That was really useful for doing home work. I suppose.
Even though I only had a b/w printer (ancient HP Laserjet Plus).

Of course, swimming so much against the stream wasn't/isn't always easy.
But somehow it was/is funny at times. For example, I was still able to read Suetterlin writing and blackletter, because of my grandma and her old books, school books and letters.
She always collected obscure old books about arts, architecture and forgotten civilizations (the pyramids, Inca, Maya etc).
That always confused my teachers, haha. xD

Anyway, don't worry. Just because something you know is old, does not make you old, as well.
Like some of (y)our sandbox friends you know that are now (grand)parents. 😉
Life is a journey, it has highs and lows. And life is what we make of it, too.
But of course, not everything is always under our control.
Sometimes a storm rises up and the course changes without our
wish and we must set a new route into unknown waters.

Edit: Speaking of old games and movies.
They live on. The younger ones do still play and watch them through their next gen consoles.
Just look at YT, there's a lot of talk about the classics. 🙂

thepirategamerboy12 wrote on 2022-03-30, 16:01:

Like, for example: I remember when I first played Sonic 2 on an actual Sega Genesis as a kid, the game at that time was about 15 years old. Now at the present time, Half-Life 2 is over 2 years older than that. That just feels so weird to me.

Ah, I see. That was roughly the time when Sonic games had their heyday in the indie scene (independent developers). 🙂👍
I've played quite a few of them at the time, I remember. Like Sonic Velocity, SRB2 etc.
The founder of Caiman.us was still alive and put his heart into presenting new free games on his site, too.
Quite a few of these games were Sonic fan games, also.
So at the time you played them on the real thing, I was spending my summer holidays diving into the depths of console emulation and modding old consoles.
I have fond memories trying out MEKA, for instance, and the old Sonic games for the Sega Master System.
Still don't know exactly what happened in Sonic 2 after the game ends (where's the sidekick ?), by the way.

Windows 3.x will always be remembered fondly, for me. There's something about it that makes me feel warm and fuzzy over it.

Maybe it's the GUI during the time when DOS was the king. Maybe the so called "multimedia" explosion that started with 3.1 - CD-ROMS with movies, graphics, texts and audio, games, applications, productivity, and so on.

So many sharewares were released for it that were interesting to just try them out on Win3.x.

Though most of my vintage computing have moved on to 86Box PC emulation and Dosbox (mainly due to convenience and their accuracy in emulating DOS and classic systems), I still have Windows 3.1 profile in Dosbox and "installed" in my 86Box period-correct machine profiles (via 86Box Manager).

Windows 3.1 is especially wonderful when paired with software like Central Point Desktop. This is how I used it on my father's computer back in the day. Norton Desktop is also excellent.

https://youtu.be/iD7AezjG5YE

Never heard of Norton Desktop before! Or I have heard of it but forgotten. At any rate I've never seen it until that video.

Another one I'd never encountered until the last few days: IBM WorkPlace Shell for Windows 3.1. A fair bit newer than Norton Desktop though.

I started collecting Norton Desktop for Windows ages ago. They also have a version for DOS. I recommend Xtree Gold versions for Win3.x as well.

Alternate Shells for Windows 3.1x

😀

http://toastytech.com/guis/cal.html

I knew a few folks using 3.1 as a DD through nearly 2010, never really understood the appeal of Calmira since it didn’t become popular until this century

Kahenraz wrote on 2022-03-31, 06:27:

I remember there being something annoying about early versions of Office. Something like you only had a couple of undos or maybe it was just one. Can anyone verify this?

I remember when there was no undue function

I sort of liked the single undue because you could keypress between undue redo
I could quickly compare a font size change on a document for example

I would still use Central Point Desktop. It's an absolutely wonderful desktop software and is my defacto Windows 3.1 experience. It's like a completely different updating system.

It's difficult to tell from the photos, but they even have a multiple desktop paradigm!