«

Seriously, I want to know.

I still use it on a Pentium II for the following reasons.

1.) It does what I need it to do.
2.) See reason #1.

I generally use it to type college term papers. How sophisticated of a
typing program do I need? I have Microsoft Word 6.0, which has more
features than I will ever use.

Netscape 4.07 loads pages very fast. It doesn't load all of the "cool,"
flashy content found on most of the web sites these days, but I can still
log into most sites without difficulty. Basically, sites are loaded as a
long page of text with some images here and there. Most of the unnecessary
stuff simply isn't displayed. Since I am only concerned with the text for a
page, I don't miss the lost PNG images that cannot be displayed on it. And
I can get on high-speed Internet through the use of a network card so
there's no problems.

I do have an XP system that I use for other work, such as using my digital
camera. But consider this: XP takes about 5 full minutes to load on a P4
3.00GHz, 1GB RAM. Windows 3.11 loads in the blink of an eye on a P2 400MHz,
256MB RAM.

So I have tried Windows 95 and ME in the past. Every time I "upgraded," if
you want to call it that, I have needed to purchase newer computer parts. I
should think that a newer OS would employ more efficient code and thus run
even faster but that is not the case. Instead, what I get is a system
crammed with even more "stuff" that I'll never use. XP uses an absurd 300MB
of memory just sitting there as soon as I start up the computer. 3.11 uses
about 1MB.

Another thing I never liked about Windows 9x and above was the damn task bar
and the cumbersome Start Menu system. I prefer the Program Manager
interface of 3.1. On my XP system I created folders with shortcuts in them
like the Program Manager ones. It is just easier than the stupid menus that
always have me clicking the wrong thing by mistake.

To me, a computer is more of an office thing. So naturally I was turned off
by XP and how it looks all cutesy. Sure I can change the skin to make it
look like 9x, but then I still have that accursed "X" button in the upper
left corner, which I invariably hit by mistake. 3.1 was great in that there
was no X button, so if you wanted to close a Window you could either do
File -> Exit or double-click the [=] box in the upper-left corner, far away
from the min/max buttons.

Win 3.1 looked nicer, too. The arrows had a definitive shape with both head
and tail. The new arrows are just a boring triangle. Not to mention the
whole 3.1 interface was simpler and crisper. The 9x 3-D look, or the XP
cutesy look most be really taxing on the memory... and for what?

Find something that works, and stick with it!

I like Windows 3.11 and use it on old computer I find. I'm thinking of
putting it on my Windows XP laptop. Also, when you had the reasons you
use PII stupid people might get caught in a loop and never get out
(they read "See number 1" and they keep reading after number 1 and get
in a loop.

Ernie Werbel wrote:
> Seriously, I want to know.
>
> I still use it on a Pentium II for the following reasons.
>
> 1.) It does what I need it to do.
> 2.) See reason #1.
>
> I generally use it to type college term papers. How sophisticated of a
> typing program do I need? I have Microsoft Word 6.0, which has more
> features than I will ever use.
>
> Netscape 4.07 loads pages very fast. It doesn't load all of the "cool,"
> flashy content found on most of the web sites these days, but I can still
> log into most sites without difficulty. Basically, sites are loaded as a
> long page of text with some images here and there. Most of the unnecessary
> stuff simply isn't displayed. Since I am only concerned with the text for a
> page, I don't miss the lost PNG images that cannot be displayed on it. And
> I can get on high-speed Internet through the use of a network card so
> there's no problems.
>
> I do have an XP system that I use for other work, such as using my digital
> camera. But consider this: XP takes about 5 full minutes to load on a P4
> 3.00GHz, 1GB RAM. Windows 3.11 loads in the blink of an eye on a P2 400MHz,
> 256MB RAM.
>
> So I have tried Windows 95 and ME in the past. Every time I "upgraded," if
> you want to call it that, I have needed to purchase newer computer parts. I
> should think that a newer OS would employ more efficient code and thus run
> even faster but that is not the case. Instead, what I get is a system
> crammed with even more "stuff" that I'll never use. XP uses an absurd 300MB
> of memory just sitting there as soon as I start up the computer. 3.11 uses
> about 1MB.
>
> Another thing I never liked about Windows 9x and above was the damn task bar
> and the cumbersome Start Menu system. I prefer the Program Manager
> interface of 3.1. On my XP system I created folders with shortcuts in them
> like the Program Manager ones. It is just easier than the stupid menus that
> always have me clicking the wrong thing by mistake.
>
> To me, a computer is more of an office thing. So naturally I was turned off
> by XP and how it looks all cutesy. Sure I can change the skin to make it
> look like 9x, but then I still have that accursed "X" button in the upper
> left corner, which I invariably hit by mistake. 3.1 was great in that there
> was no X button, so if you wanted to close a Window you could either do
> File -> Exit or double-click the [=] box in the upper-left corner, far away
> from the min/max buttons.
>
> Win 3.1 looked nicer, too. The arrows had a definitive shape with both head
> and tail. The new arrows are just a boring triangle. Not to mention the
> whole 3.1 interface was simpler and crisper. The 9x 3-D look, or the XP
> cutesy look most be really taxing on the memory... and for what?
>
> Find something that works, and stick with it!

If you only use a computer for word processing, simple spreadsheets and web
surfing then almost any pc that uses a 386 processor is fast enough,
although more RAM is required than was generally the case of Win3.x, but not
the gigabytes seen in today's systems.
The majority of computer users never stress their systems or use their
software to the fullest. This is the secret behind the survival of Apple,
the majority of whose users have incredibly simple needs and did not realize
that until OSX they were using the Apple equivalent of Windows 3.x. with
even worse memory management.
The majority of MS Word users do not use any more of the program than is
available in the Wordpad applet built into WIndows.
If it takes five minutes for XP to load on your computer then you have
serious configuration problems.

Ernie Werbel wrote:
>
> Seriously, I want to know.

I used WFW3.11 for as long as I could. I really enjoy using an OS for as
long as possible. But, even for me, I had to give up 3.11 many years
ago.


--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Ernie Werbel wrote:

> Seriously, I want to know.
>
> I still use it on a Pentium II for the following reasons.
>
> 1.) It does what I need it to do.
> 2.) See reason #1.
>
> I generally use it to type college term papers. How sophisticated of a
> typing program do I need? I have Microsoft Word 6.0, which has more
> features than I will ever use.
>
> Netscape 4.07 loads pages very fast. It doesn't load all of the "cool,"
> flashy content found on most of the web sites these days, but I can still
> log into most sites without difficulty. Basically, sites are loaded as a
> long page of text with some images here and there. Most of the unnecessary
> stuff simply isn't displayed. Since I am only concerned with the text for a
> page, I don't miss the lost PNG images that cannot be displayed on it. And
> I can get on high-speed Internet through the use of a network card so
> there's no problems.
>
> I do have an XP system that I use for other work, such as using my digital
> camera. But consider this: XP takes about 5 full minutes to load on a P4
> 3.00GHz, 1GB RAM. Windows 3.11 loads in the blink of an eye on a P2 400MHz,
> 256MB RAM.
>
> So I have tried Windows 95 and ME in the past. Every time I "upgraded," if
> you want to call it that, I have needed to purchase newer computer parts. I
> should think that a newer OS would employ more efficient code and thus run
> even faster but that is not the case. Instead, what I get is a system
> crammed with even more "stuff" that I'll never use. XP uses an absurd 300MB
> of memory just sitting there as soon as I start up the computer. 3.11 uses
> about 1MB.
>
> Another thing I never liked about Windows 9x and above was the damn task bar
> and the cumbersome Start Menu system. I prefer the Program Manager
> interface of 3.1. On my XP system I created folders with shortcuts in them
> like the Program Manager ones. It is just easier than the stupid menus that
> always have me clicking the wrong thing by mistake.
>
> To me, a computer is more of an office thing. So naturally I was turned off
> by XP and how it looks all cutesy. Sure I can change the skin to make it
> look like 9x, but then I still have that accursed "X" button in the upper
> left corner, which I invariably hit by mistake. 3.1 was great in that there
> was no X button, so if you wanted to close a Window you could either do
> File -> Exit or double-click the [=] box in the upper-left corner, far away
> from the min/max buttons.
>
> Win 3.1 looked nicer, too. The arrows had a definitive shape with both head
> and tail. The new arrows are just a boring triangle. Not to mention the
> whole 3.1 interface was simpler and crisper. The 9x 3-D look, or the XP
> cutesy look most be really taxing on the memory... and for what?
>
> Find something that works, and stick with it!
>
>
I agree.
But somehow i lost my Netscape for it.
How could i get NS4.07, or would you be willing to copy the disk for me?

"Robert Baer" <> wrote in message news:_KEzg.2946>
I agree.
> But somehow i lost my Netscape for it.
> How could i get NS4.07, or would you be willing to copy the disk for me?

I got it at http://www.oldos.org
They have a lot of free/abandonware software for DOS and early versions of
Windows. It's a pretty good site and has helped me out a lot.

Ernie Werbel wrote:
> "Robert Baer" <> wrote in message news:_KEzg.2946>
> I agree.
>
>> But somehow i lost my Netscape for it.
>> How could i get NS4.07, or would you be willing to copy the disk for me?
>
>
> I got it at http://www.oldos.org
> They have a lot of free/abandonware software for DOS and early versions of
> Windows. It's a pretty good site and has helped me out a lot.
>
>
Thanks.

I got mine from www.winworld.com, oldos is good too but WinWorld has a
huge selection.

Ernie Werbel wrote:
> "Robert Baer" <> wrote in message news:_KEzg.2946>
> I agree.
>> But somehow i lost my Netscape for it.
>> How could i get NS4.07, or would you be willing to copy the disk for me?
>
> I got it at http://www.oldos.org
> They have a lot of free/abandonware software for DOS and early versions of
> Windows. It's a pretty good site and has helped me out a lot.
>
>