Windows 3.1

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by =?iso-8859-1?B?pqamU0hBRDBXpqam?=, Jul 16, 2006.

  1. Anyone else here still use that OS? I think it's really good because it gets the job done w/o any bells and whistles. I would still use 3.0 but it was troublesome with the network.
     
    =?iso-8859-1?B?pqamU0hBRDBXpqam?=, Jul 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?iso-8859-1?B?pqamU0hBRDBXpqam?=

    Duane Arnold Guest

    ¦¦¦SHAD0W¦¦¦ wrote:
    > Anyone else here still use that OS? I think it's really good because it
    > gets the job done w/o any bells and whistles. I would still use 3.0 but
    > it was troublesome with the network.


    It's outdated technology that has seen its time and it's gone.

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?iso-8859-1?B?pqamU0hBRDBXpqam?=

    Robert Baer Guest

    Duane Arnold wrote:
    > ¦¦¦SHAD0W¦¦¦ wrote:
    >
    >> Anyone else here still use that OS? I think it's really good because
    >> it gets the job done w/o any bells and whistles. I would still use
    >> 3.0 but it was troublesome with the network.

    >
    >
    > It's outdated technology that has seen its time and it's gone.
    >
    > Duane :)

    It has its uses: 1) it is extremely fast in loading - the newer the
    WinOS the slower and more piggie; 2) the graphics apps i have work the
    same and are compatible; 3) a compiler i have is actually mode flexible
    in Win3.x than any other OS as i can compile code that will work the
    same in DOS or any WinOS (16 or 32 bit).
    And i have a lot of DOS utilities that in some cases do things that
    are impossible to do in other Win environments.
     
    Robert Baer, Jul 17, 2006
    #3
  4. =?iso-8859-1?B?pqamU0hBRDBXpqam?=

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Robert Baer wrote:
    > Duane Arnold wrote:
    >
    >> ¦¦¦SHAD0W¦¦¦ wrote:
    >>
    >>> Anyone else here still use that OS? I think it's really good because
    >>> it gets the job done w/o any bells and whistles. I would still use
    >>> 3.0 but it was troublesome with the network.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> It's outdated technology that has seen its time and it's gone.
    >>
    >> Duane :)

    >
    > It has its uses: 1) it is extremely fast in loading - the newer the
    > WinOS the slower and more piggie; 2) the graphics apps i have work the
    > same and are compatible; 3) a compiler i have is actually mode flexible
    > in Win3.x than any other OS as i can compile code that will work the
    > same in DOS or any WinOS (16 or 32 bit).
    > And i have a lot of DOS utilities that in some cases do things that
    > are impossible to do in other Win environments.


    For the average job blow user, it's dead or in a vast majority of
    corporate solutions, it's dead. I have not seen Win 3.x, well, it was
    before 1999 I know that much.

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 17, 2006
    #4
  5. =?iso-8859-1?B?pqamU0hBRDBXpqam?=

    Bolshoy Huy Guest

    Robert Baer wrote:
    > And i have a lot of DOS utilities that in some cases do things that
    > are impossible to do in other Win environments.


    for a long time i was renaming multiple files in DOS.
    ex: xyz.jpg to xyz.jpg.bak
    if u have many files to rename, it's a pain using windows.
    then, I found a few utilities that do that in windows.
    rename, add extensions, etc. anything done in DOS could be done in
    windows.
     
    Bolshoy Huy, Jul 18, 2006
    #5
  6. =?iso-8859-1?B?pqamU0hBRDBXpqam?=

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Bolshoy Huy wrote:
    > Robert Baer wrote:
    >
    >> And i have a lot of DOS utilities that in some cases do things that
    >>are impossible to do in other Win environments.

    >
    >
    > for a long time i was renaming multiple files in DOS.
    > ex: xyz.jpg to xyz.jpg.bak
    > if u have many files to rename, it's a pain using windows.
    > then, I found a few utilities that do that in windows.
    > rename, add extensions, etc. anything done in DOS could be done in
    > windows.
    >


    I am curious. Did you find a job?

    Duane
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 18, 2006
    #6
  7. =?iso-8859-1?B?pqamU0hBRDBXpqam?=

    Bolshoy Huy Guest

    Duane Arnold wrote:
    >
    > I am curious. Did you find a job?
    >
    > Duane


    I am curious as to whom you are asking, me?
     
    Bolshoy Huy, Jul 20, 2006
    #7
  8. =?iso-8859-1?B?pqamU0hBRDBXpqam?=

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Bolshoy Huy wrote:
    > Duane Arnold wrote:
    >
    >>I am curious. Did you find a job?
    >>
    >>Duane

    >
    >
    > I am curious as to whom you are asking, me?
    >


    All day long

    Duane
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 20, 2006
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?UmlmbGVtYW4=?=

    Windows XP laptop and Windows 2000 desktop won't communicate

    =?Utf-8?B?UmlmbGVtYW4=?=, Aug 19, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    982
    =?Utf-8?B?UmlmbGVtYW4=?=
    Aug 19, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?ZHVtbWthdWY=?=

    wireless ad-hoc with Windows XP and Windows 2000

    =?Utf-8?B?ZHVtbWthdWY=?=, Sep 23, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,034
    Joe Dow
    Sep 23, 2004
  3. Armstrong Wong

    Windows XP Home Connected to Windows XP Pro via TCP/IP

    Armstrong Wong, Nov 24, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    867
    Steve Winograd [MVP]
    Nov 25, 2004
  4. =?Utf-8?B?R3JlZw==?=

    Network Windows ME and Windows 2000

    =?Utf-8?B?R3JlZw==?=, Dec 29, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    840
  5. Max Burke
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,101
    E. Scrooge
    May 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page