Anyone still running a windows 3.x machine?

[Procta]

Is there anyone still running a windows 3.x on PC hardware rather than vmware?
I have two systems, that i have spare, that i want to have a go and try a windows 3.x network like we did have at school. Also if i can try and see if i can get a network like the RM nimbus networks. But its finding that software.
basically can you still get network cards new that support windows 3.x? i do have windows 3.11, windows 3.1 and OS2 and windows 2.0.
be nice if i could get those working.

[Goldfish64]

I've got a machine that multiple boots DOS 6.22/WFW 3.11, Windows 98SE, and NT4. I got the network card in 2007 or 2008, and it works just fine with all the OSes on there. It's a D-Link DFE-530TX+ (rev F) 10/100 PCI card. I think I was also able to get the card working under NT 3.51 and I believe OS/2 may also be a supported OS as well.

Newegg currently is selling it here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6833127102.

[computebrute]

I've got a 1992 Texas Instruments laptop with an i486DX2 running Windows 3.11.

[Procta]

what do you use the older systems for? if you don't mind me asking

[Goldfish64]

what do you use the older systems for? if you don't mind me asking

Not anything useful. I tried running YouTube via VLC, but it didn't work with the Cyrix MII. I doubt a Pentium has the correct instructions for newer VLC on Linux to run. So for now, the title of oldest system to run a YouTube video streaming goes to the iMac G3.

It's also neat to see 15+ year old systems still able to access the modern Internet. I should see if SpeedTest works on that hardware and see what kind of result I get.

[valvedubstep]

Pueblo airport

[Windows OS]

Pueblo airport

For those who don't know, a French airport are still using computers with Windows 3.1 installed. Yes, WINDOWS 3.1!!! Apparently, they still use 3.1 because a piece of software for transmitting weather infomation to pilots called DECOR does not work in newer versions of Windows. Plus, a crash on one of their 3.1 systems brought that airport to it's knees.
Source: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/ ... ommission/

Offtopic Comment

And you thought big businesses that still run XP is bad.

[nazguz]

sjeez then go on airplanes lols
no thanks

[MSUser2013]

It's also neat to see 15+ year old systems still able to access the modern Internet. I should see if SpeedTest works on that hardware and see what kind of result I get.

Agreed, At the beginning of this year I've tried browsing the internet on my HP E-Vectra using Firefox 3.6 on Windows 2000. It was usable although some sites asked me to upgrade my browser but still work provided it falls back to the mobile or lightweight version. I've also browsed the net on my 1999 PowerMac G4 using Classilla. It browsed this site fine but that's not surprising at all.

I currently have no Windows 3.1 Computers in my collection, But I ran Windows 3.1 on a Dell Latitude CP and a Custom Built Pentium II PC in the past.

[roytam1]

/me remembers this: https://news.vice.com/article/windows-3 ... ch-airport

[yourepicfailure]

I run NT 3.51 on one of my laptops. It's like a super enhanced 3.1. Especially with full window drag, adjustable resolution...

[DallasCHVN]

I was running Windows 3.1 3 months ago on an IBM ThinkCentre with 1GB RAM and a P4 2.8 Ghz. It worked well except that I was stuck with 640x480 and only 16 colors and no sound. I mainly used it to rum DOS Games. Currently this PC runs Windows XP Professional SP3. I also have eight other PCs, some of them are broken.

[win98]

Not currently but back in like 2009 I got WFWG 311 onto the internet with a pentium 3 deskpro en and managed to browse BA and I made a thread at the time. I plan on digging out my collection of old machines I've been amassing to make sure they all still work and get an install of an appropriate OS setup on each of them. I have 2 pentium 1 133mhz machines and whichever one has more 3.11 compatability will be getting an install of it. The Deskpro EN I setup in 2009 half died and I foolishly threw it out about 3 years ago but probably should of kept it so I could use parts from it.

If you want to run 3.11 on real hardware you really need a pentium 1 era machine with peripherals from the same era and for networking something using a generic Intel, Realtek or 3Com chip. Many cards will have one of these even when branded something like Dlink and should work if the chip is supported. 3.11 can run as I made it on newer hardware like the Deskpro EN, but I beleive that was intentionally designed to support as many OS' as possible in its day They ran an intel 810 onboard video and intel networking with soundmax audio which didn't work. Forget 3.11 sound support unless you can get the sound card to work via DOS or use something like a real sound blaster.

[Schezo]

I have Windows for Workgroups 3.11 on a real computer, but it's not the main OS.

Currently, Windows 98 SE is because it fits better (with 448MB of RAM it's better this way) and I can easily run Win 1.01-3.1 when I feel like. That, and at least there are some compatible drivers for 98 SE to make the experience better. No such luck for Wfw.

On a fun note, I've installed many things on this machine, including Windows NT 3.51. There were no drivers for it but it pretty much worked fine... until a BSOD while copying files off a CD took NT down with it.

[SoftWitch]

I still have one 486SX laptop (NEC Ultralite Versa) running Win 3.1. But it doesn't have a network connection yet. Regarding desktop computer, Realtek, 3com, NE2000 or LANCE chipsets never caused problems. Getting them new could be hard, but used or new old stock they should be cheap. They brought drivers on floppies for almost *any* operating system…

[MM-DD-YY]

I run Windows NT 3.1 quite frequently on one of my machines to maintain/develop legacy software.

[Procta]

I will have to see if I can get hold of a 3.x server software, any ideas where you can get that sort of stuff now?

[sdfox7]

I have a early-1995 Dell Latitude machine (pre-Windows 95) with Windows for Workgroups 3.11.

I have more than one vintage laptop, and I can attest that they certainly don't make them like they used to!





Edited 06-MAR-16 to comply with BA's image hosting policy; removed links and uploaded to BA.

[yourepicfailure]

http://sdfox7.com/win311/files/IMG_3761.jpg

Offtopic Comment

Awww... black on white dos- is that default?
I want that laptop.

[win98]

http://sdfox7.com/win311/files/IMG_3761.jpg

Offtopic Comment

Awww... black on white dos- is that default?
I want that laptop.

In reply to the offtopic part of your post:

Offtopic Comment

Its either been changed with something like ANIS.SYS or the color command or its one of those machines where in text mode the video card is hard coded to interpret white as black and black as white when in text mode and running without something like one of the above commands being active. This was done to make it easier to read ( or so they thought) and / or to make it more like writing on paper though its probably not the best for the monitor if its CRT and I've only heard of it being a thing in laptops.

[yourepicfailure]

I do know how they'd do it, and why its bad for CRT but it is interesting as to why it mainly occurred on laptops. I would place my money on either the Bios or card firmware as to how it was done.
Reminds me of SunOS.

Anyways, I am planning to modify my 3.51 setup to look a little less grayish in some areas, and maybe do a few of the tweaks shown here: viewtopic.php?t=27269.
Already changed the color scheme to match 3.1's, I don't know why Microsoft had to make 3.51 so dull compared to 3.1. (several areas that would be white or bright in 3.1 are either grayish or using some odd color in NT)
3.51 is still surprisingly useful, even in 2015. Although I use a floppy(nothing wrong with that) to get stuff on and off, it's still decent.

[Procta]

I do know how they'd do it, and why its bad for CRT but it is interesting as to why it mainly occurred on laptops. I would place my money on either the Bios or card firmware as to how it was done.
Reminds me of SunOS.

Anyways, I am planning to modify my 3.51 setup to look a little less grayish in some areas, and maybe do a few of the tweaks shown here: viewtopic.php?t=27269.
Already changed the color scheme to match 3.1's, I don't know why Microsoft had to make 3.51 so dull compared to 3.1. (several areas that would be white or bright in 3.1 are either grayish or using some odd color in NT)
3.51 is still surprisingly useful, even in 2015. Although I use a floppy(nothing wrong with that) to get stuff on and off, it's still decent.

how old is your windows 3.51 machine? as I am planning on seeing if I can put this on my server build.

[yourepicfailure]

how old is your windows 3.51 machine? as I am planning on seeing if I can put this on my server build.

It is about 11-12 years old. Uses a Pentium M Banias- basically an enhanced Pentium 3.
You can get away with NT on anything non x86_64. NT4 Bluescreens on such hardware, although I don't know about 3.
If you use VBEMP, large windows + large resolution + full drag is not a good idea.

[Procta]

how old is your windows 3.51 machine? as I am planning on seeing if I can put this on my server build.

It is about 11-12 years old. Uses a Pentium M Banias- basically an enhanced Pentium 3.
You can get away with NT on anything non x86_64. NT4 Bluescreens on such hardware, although I don't know about 3.
If you use VBEMP, large windows + large resolution + full drag is not a good idea.

how much ram are you using in it? I know NT4 doesn't see anything over 4gig?
the server motherboard I am using is this,
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Arima-RioWork ... Swqv9V5r4u

mine doesn't have sata on the board, not sure if windows 3.51 will run on it, what you recon?

[yourepicfailure]

I'm using 2GB ram.

Only problem I see there is the amd64. NT4 would scream on later Opterons, but I've heard of it running on the original 2003 releases.
NT 3.51 might take it, although I can't say for sure so it may be a hit and miss. Its CPUID check isn't kernel-mode like NT4, so if you do get past txt setup graphical setup may need tweaking to kill off the setup CPUID checks. Much like the early NT3 "hacks".
That ebay seller is either false-advertising or just doesn't know what they're talking about. There is no sata on that board, though you already know that.

Offtopic Comment

Hmm, I prefer 1U's and blades over 2U+...