VOGONS


First post, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Hi everyone! Windows 3.10 was released on April 6th, 1992!
Today, that was 33 years ago! Hurray!

Happy Birthday, Windows 3.1! 🥳🎂

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 1 of 11, by Grzyb

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

And on March 31, 1992, OS/2 2.0 was released.

There was nothing special about Windows 3.1 - just an update to the 3.0.
OS/2 2.0, however, was a major breakthrough - the first general-purpose 32-bit operating system for the PC, light years ahead of Windows... unfortunately, also tonnes heavier than Windows 😜

Kiełbasa smakuje najlepiej, gdy przysmażysz ją laserem!

Reply 2 of 11, by Intel486dx33

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I have both running on an IBM Desktop PC ( Select-a-System )
You can install this Multi-OS on any PC as log as you meet the Hardware requirements.

Includes:
Win 3x
Win95
OS2

My Post Link:
IBM Desktop P-750, Pentium 90 ( Select-a-System ).

Last edited by Intel486dx33 on 2025-04-06, 16:10. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 3 of 11, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

@Grzyb Hi, I liked 2.11.. 🙂 Wasn't OS/2 2.0 on Windows 3.0 feature level?
OS/2 2.1x had featured multimedia, like Windows 3.1 had.
It even ran a copy of Windows 3.1. OS/2 2.1 has birthday somewhen next month.
https://www.os2museum.com/wp/os2-history/os2-timeline/
https://www.os2museum.com/wp/os2-history/os2-2-1-and-2-11/

@ Intel486dx33 Thanks, I enjoyed the photos!

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 4 of 11, by Grzyb

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Jo22 wrote on 2025-04-06, 12:38:

@Grzyb Hi, I liked 2.11.. 🙂 Wasn't OS/2 2.0 on Windows 3.0 feature level?
OS/2 2.1x had featured multimedia, like Windows 3.1 had.
It even ran a copy of Windows 3.1. OS/2 2.1 has birthday somewhen next month.

If by "feature level" you mean stuff like multimedia support, then yes - no multimedia in OS/2 2.0, just like no multimedia in Windows 3.0.
Also, Win-OS/2 in OS/2 2.0 is based on Windows 3.0.

But in general, OS/2 2.0 was a fully fledged 32-bit OS, with filesystem more advanced than FAT.
A completely different class than the 16-bit overlay for DOS that Windows 3.x was, and even above Windows 9x/ME.

The only Windows to fully match 32-bit OS/2 was the NT, period.

Kiełbasa smakuje najlepiej, gdy przysmażysz ją laserem!

Reply 5 of 11, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

The thing I remember about the win 3.1 release was... It made the news... the regular news, TV news, newspaper news... it was not the main story by any means but it wasn't a "by the way" on a business or tech report section, or the "happenings around the country/world" thing that gets 30 seconds in the 2nd or 3rd segment, it was a full news story.

Up until that time, I don't recall any software release or new computer hardware making the regular news this strongly. The one exception was the Apple 1984 superbowl ad, but they were talking about the ad, without the ad they would not have mentioned the Mac, like the publicity made a splash but not the existence of the machine. I think there were stories about the industry as a whole, like the video game crash, and reporter editorials about what the kids are into these days, panic pieces about the evils of video parlors and other nonsense.

I am talking about mainstream, general public, consciousness of these things happening, for a single company's particular product. It broke through.

Next month, it was all over the covers of tech mags and periodicals, thus it was somewhat embarrassing for a tech geek at the time, because ppl were asking you about it, because it was on "the news" but your source of deeper information ran a month behind that. There hadn't been much fanfare and pre-hype, and if there was you might have ignored it, it's just a bit of an update after all.

Anyway, I remember it as kind of breaking the floodgates into the mainstream for tech and software industry news. It was on the fringes until then. Definitely paved the way for that 2 or 3 months of "Couldn't stop hearing about Windows 95" media binge 3 years later.

3.0 was still overcoming the reputation of needing an expensive, loaded up, machine to run it well as it had at release. However by 1992, intel had real competition, 386 machines were diving under $1000, Compaq kicked off the 486 price war mid/late year. So 3.1 hit the sweet spot, to make for a consumer usable point and drool computer that was just about affordable.... and we were off... the confluence of things in 1992 was the start of PCs for everyone.

Stop random ppl in the street and ask "Name a version of microsoft windows from last century" and Win 95 and 98 will be top right answer scores, but Win 3.1 will be third. To the wider world, 3.1 was the first windows version that "mattered".

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Reply 6 of 11, by Intel486dx33

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I was in Computer education center taking Certification classes at this time back in 1993
I remember the TV Show “computer chronicles” was very popular in Silicon Valley and this show
Informed allot of people about what was going on in the computer industry.

In our class rooms they taught all kinds of computers and we often would compare them to see which was better.
We had the Mac users, PC users, UNIX users, and Novell users.
We had the Most sophisticated heterogeneous Network.
Our students were in high demand by Silicon Valley business as at the time only a few schools taught computer
Certification classes.

Link:
https://youtu.be/YewNEAIkbG4?si=PC1vqkbhqt8oGbuZ

Reply 7 of 11, by Norton Commander

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I used OS/2 2.1 on a 386/DX 33MHz I used to own (still have the motherboard). I remember it was compatible with Windows 3.0 software but I recall the most was its ability to multi-task DOS programs. After much, much tweaking I was able to download using Procomm Plus 2 for DOS @14.4Kbs while playing Wolfenstein 3D.

On my 486DX/33MHz it was MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.1. I really liked the addition of True Type fonts especially when coupled with Serif Page Plus. I used mostly DOS for my gaming/word processing, starting Windows 3.1 for desktop publishing. I loved Microsoft Arcade and Castle of the Winds (never did finish it).

Reply 8 of 11, by StriderTR

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I never owned a copy of OS/2 back in its day. I stuck with DOS, and later on, Windows 3.1. Prior to Win 3.1 I really didn't run a GUI for daily use, just Norton Commander. Of course, I've since played with OS/2 and really wish it had seen more commercial success.

I knew about OS/2, but Microsoft was steamrolling everything at the time, even more so after the IBM/MS "breakup". As cool as OS/2 was, and more advanced, it just didn't have the support it needed to compete against the Microsoft monster. While I did like DOS (My favorite MS-OS) and enjoyed using Win 3.1, and later 9x (I actually really liked 95/98), I significantly disliked MS as a company for their highly anti-competitive / anti-consumer practices by that point. I'm still not a fan. To this day, I use Windows only becasue it's required for the software/games/driver support I need. If it's wasn't for that, I'd run Ubuntu 24/7, I much prefer Linux. All of my "other" modern systems run Ubuntu, only my daily drivers run Windows.

Retro Blog & Builds: https://theclassicgeek.blogspot.com/
3D Things: https://www.thingiverse.com/classicgeek/collections
Wallpapers & Art: https://www.deviantart.com/theclassicgeek

Reply 9 of 11, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Similar here. What I really liked about Windows 3.1 was "the community" so to say, rather than the product.
Lots of independent developers that tried their luck to get their foot into computing.
With Visual Basic, a whole ecosystem for rapid application development (RAD) emerged basically out of nowhere.
The blooming shareware and freeware scene of the day is a testamony of this.
You suddenly bought commercially looking software by individuals via mail order (or via e-mail even).
You could actually talk with the authors, directly! As if they were a human being! No, wait.. Never mind.
Also, about same time, multimedia and the 486 processor got popular.
Virtual Reality and cyberspace, too. There had been cyber cafes and VR games, among other things.

PS: Needless to say that I've also liked DOS/Norton Commander and tinkering with Quick Basic 4.5.
I've even tried to use existing QB45 code in VB1, which sometimes worked.
OS/2 had Visual REXX VX-REXX, which was mighty and cool but difficult to understand.
By contrast, FoxPro or CA dBFast on Windows were quite easy I think.

PS/2: I have liked Windows 3.1 as a platform/as a runtime in short.
It even made it on Unix/Linux in the shape of Wabi..

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 10 of 11, by gerry

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I remember the time when windows 3.1 was coming out, an office with some 80386 (mostly) machines, some on windows 3.0 and some on the exciting new 3.1 ! Each machine was standalone, not everyone had one and data was shared by disk!

there was no 'www', software had huge manuals and DOS was a mystery to most. Windows 3.1 really made things 'intuitive' for many users, the concepts of double clikcing things, wysiwyg and mouse pointers were all first encountered by many at that time on a 3.1 machine. Yet it was only dominant for a few short years, by 1996/7 most office machines were already moving to 95 and nt4. I don't think any other OS has so many applications written and ported to GUI in just a few years. Almost all the standard GUI software we are used to - office suites, browsers, IDEs and many specialist packages were all made GUI on this OS and have evolved ever since.

Other big movements, like becoming "online", moving to 32 or 64 bits and so are also important, but in interface terms i remember 3.1 as being the event that bought in the masses as far as getting to grips with computers at work