Talk:Windows 3.1/Archive 1

Archive 1

Trumpet

Seems rather inexact ms tcp/ip was an alternative to Trumpet winsock. User:Ericd

Requirements

Other than the 286-386 requirement, what were the other minimum requirements of the 3.x Windows OS? I've been trying to look into that for comparison purposes. User:SvannahLion

1MB RAM, as I recall, and about 5MB of hard drive. That was it. Ran much better with 4MB. Tannin

For Windows 3.1 my manual says Microsoft MS-DOS version 3.1 or later. For 386 enhanced mode, a 386 processor and 640 kilobytes of conventional memory, 1 MB of extended memory and 8 megabytes of disk space.

To run Windows 3.1 standard mode: a 286 processor, 640 kilobytes of conventional memory and 256 kilobytes of extended memory and six megabytes of hard disk space.

I would suggest having at least eight MB of free hard drive space for a swapfile.

Windows for Workgroups: 386sx, MS-DOS 3.3. Three megabytes of RAM. 4 MB is recommended. With networking disabled, you need two megabytes. Ten and a half MB of hard disk space is required.

On my computer, my C:\Windows direcotry is about 13.5 MB in size. My C:\DOS directory is about 6 MB. Hope this helps. 68.100.47.35

WfW: the article is correct, the requirement for a 386 only came with version 3.11 (which only boots in extended mode); version 3.10 of WfW, apart being much less used, was able to boot in standard mode (using DOSX as extender, no VXD); of course, then, the computer cannot act as server, only netword client, since VSERVER was a VxD. So WfW 3.10 could boot on a 286 (seen on a 3MB Toshiba laptop). Also see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q126746/ AntoineL 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bob

• Shouldn't there be something about "Microsoft Bob" in this article? DCEdwards1966 06:59, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a brief mention and a link to Microsoft Bob.

-- UTSRelativity 04:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please Re-write

The seperate mentions of Progman and Winfile should be grouped together and put at the top part of the article. I am not sure but isn't the options bar in Windows 3.0 as well? Missing is the fact that Reversi was not included with WFW 3.11, and also not mentioned is Paintbrush. TCP/IP support was available from Microsoft for WFW 3.11 (I would not call Microsoft third-party here). I am not sure that the article should be split between Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1x like it is, because we might as well split it up. A mention of this being the first version of Windows with the Windows Registry (though not extensively used; configuration was primarily done with INI files) is appropriate.

-- UTSRelativity 04:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some goofs to fix

Windows 3.1 dropped Reversi, Reversi will run in all later 3.x versions but not in 9x. It's available as a seperate download for post-3.0 Windows versions, as are some wallpaper bitmaps from 3.0 that were dropped. (Oddly, Reversi runs fine in Windows 2000 and XP, I haven't tried it with Me.)

Actually, Reversi was initially supposed to be in Windows 3.1 as well, and it still is in some beta versions of Windows 3.1, especially in build 034. Build 034 also had all the Windows 3.0 bitmaps. These things were probably only dropped from Windows 3.1 during the late beta stage, as build 061d doesn't have them anymore. - OBrasilo 10:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Windows 3.11 (NOT For Workgroups) was the version to introduce 32bit Disk Access. It wasn't terribly useful since the system still had to thunk down to using the BIOS for storage operations. Other than that there wasn't much different from 3.1. This was the final version with Standard Mode for the 80286 CPU.

Actually, Windows 3.1 (NOT for Workgroups) already did have 32-bit Disk Access, in 386 Enhanced mode. NOTE: Windows 3.11 (NOT for Workgroups) only had an updated core, SETUP.EXE, SETUP.INF and some new network drivers - no other things were changed from Windows 3.1. - OBrasilo 10:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Windows For Workgroups 3.11, the final 3.x version, had both 32bit Disk and File access. No special drivers were required to use them with hard drives, if the controller was directly supported by Windows. CD-ROMs and other non-hard drive storage media required 32bit compatable drivers loaded through the DOS CONFIG.SYS and/or AUTOEXEC.BAT A WFWG 3.11 system with 32megs RAM and fully 32bit compliant storage drivers was quite nice and speedy.

Sections are needed on WinG, the advanced graphics display API Microsoft was developing before dropping it and switching to DirectX, and Win32s, the 32bit API command subset that was the fruit of Microsoft's early work on designing a fully 32bit Windows system. Most programs from the early 90's that say they're compatable with Windows 3.1x and 95 are actually Win32s programs, using that add-on to run on 3.x. Microsoft incorporated all the functionality of the Win32s API into Windows 95.

Actually, some programs still came in native Windows 3.1x versions even AFTER Windows 95 was released. Good examples of that were Paint Shop Pro (Version 3.12 was the last native Windows 3.1x version, if I recall correctly) and WinZIP (Version 6.3 was the last native Windows 3.1x version). - OBrasilo 10:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall ANY version of Windows 3.x (even NT 3.x) having any native ability to do anything with the right mouse button, not without 3rd party mouse drivers. (FYI, the PROGMAN and WINFILE from NT 4.5 will run in 2000 and XP, with long filename support, and they don't support any right mouse button functionality either.)

/* Paintbrush used the right mouse button. I don't know if it needed a separate driver, but i think it didn't. */

Who am I? Just someone with 22 years computer experience who has used every version of DOS from 2.1 through 6.22 and Windows from 3.0 through XP.

Don't know who left this anonymous comment but they have some of their facts wrong. 32bda was in 3.1, not 3.11; the comment about 32b compatible (note spelling) DOS drivers is vague (I know of no such limitation); there was no NT 4.5; & so on. I see no need for most of this. Liam Proven 30 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm someone with almost 14 years computer experience, and I used every version of DOS from 1.25 through 7.10 (of the Chinese league), and Windows from 1.01 to Windows XP SP 2 (and this information is true, it's NOT sarcasm). So there, Mr. Anoynmous "22 years computer experience" Poster, it would be nice if you stopped showing off. - OBrasilo 10:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Windows NT 4.5 Small Business Server and Windows NT 4.5 BackOffice Server. Search Microsoft.com before claiming a product they made doesn't exist! To use a CD-ROM drive with 32bit disk and file access, the DOS driver had to be compatable with Windows taking control to avoid thunking to 16bit when accessing it. I ran into that many times. Fortunately the driver on the Win98SE boot disk works fine in place of most DOS CD-ROM drivers for Win 3.1x.

The product is still Windows NT 4.0. Look below for explanations on why it's so. - OBrasilo 10:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Windows 3.11 needs to be mentioned in the article to differentiate it from Windows For Workgroups 3.11, especially since that version still had Standard Mode and would run on a 286.

• Windows 3.11 (non wfwg) wasn't a product. It was Win3.1 with a patch that wasn't widely available. AFAIK, it was never slipstreamed into retail or OEM channels - msft just began shipping wfwg.

Oh really? How come I have a full disk set of Windows 3.11 (not FWG), and also in SEVERL LANGUAGES, including Thai and Turkish then? - OBrasilo 10:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Same point as OBrasilo: I do have a set of 8 disks, tagged with a famous 2-letter logo, with W3.11 (French release, without the 40/128-bit mess proper of WfW3.11) inside; came with OEM licenses. Also http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q32905/ lists it as a separate product. You are correct it was not common. AntoineL 18:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 3.11 (not for workgroups) did exist, if i remember rightly it added better foreign language support but was otherwise identical to the normal 3.1, being more of a patch than a release 134.36.93.46 (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• 4.5 on SBS and BOS are the version numbers of those products, not version numbers for Windows NT. They were NT4 with a suite of other server apps in one box.
• You can sign your comments by typing ~~~~

SchmuckyTheCat 1 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Not a product?

Windows 3.11 (non wfwg) was a product, though likely a product not promoted as "new", much like Windows 95B was (to the average user) just quietly introduced with new PCs. I had an original disk set with that version number on the lables AND on the splash screen. It can also be found as a set of disk images on various (usually transitory) "warez" or "abandonware" sites. I have also run into versions with 3.1 on the splash screen but internally* identified as 3.11, so those were probably 3.1 with the 3.11 patch.

More likely it was the other way around –- see screenshot at [1]. --tyomitch 15:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There was also a 3.11 Special Upgrade Edition for Windows 2.x or 3.0.

When using the right API call to get the real version instead of the 3.10 Microsoft used to avoid problems with badly written apps that were hard coded to look only for 3.10 and would see 3.11 as not "3.1 or higher".

Another clue is the different disk lables. Windows 3.11 names are this format; MSWIN3111, MSWIN3112 etc. while WFWG names are WFW311_1, WFW311_2 etc. Microsoft lists the contents of the 3.11 disks http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;114448#appliesto (with the disk names) but not the WFWG 3.11 disks. I dug out a set of WFWG 3.11 disks to find the naming for that version.

So there! ;) Windows (non-Workgroups) was a real, distinct (though not actively marketed/hyped) product and should be mentioned on this Wikipedia page.

It's not a 'product' but rather a 'service pack'. It just updates a few files and changes the Windows version. Mentioned now --tyomitch 15:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Something else to mention in the article is the Workgroups For Windows add-on, including which versions of Windows it'd work with and the hardware requirements.

This name only has 746 Google results, and no relevant ones. If you know anything about it, please give me a link or extend the article yourself. --tyomitch 15:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Even at the time there was confusion about W3.11 and WFW3.11. WFW3.11 had very good reviews, and a lot of press. And W3.11 was a tiny minor update that got no reviews and no press and inevitably got confused with WFW3.11. At the time I thought that it was a cynical exercise in re-numbering like Word 6.0, only more dishonest. 150.101.166.15 (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cynical exercise or not, how often is Windows 3.11 described as a separate product in published materials both online and off-line? Not just reviews, especially not just reviews at the time of its release!!! I think you will find the vast majority of off-web and online published materials define Win3.11 as a separate product. Even it "technically speaking" it isn't really, that is a point for wikis other than Wikipedia. Review Wikipedia Notability Guidelines Cuvtixo (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the vast majority of people, then and now, did not/do not realise that, unlike the WFW upgrade, the Win 3.11 upgrade was a new printer driver disk and not much else. It will be a shame if Wikipedia encourages this confusion. 150.101.166.15 (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3.11 (not for workgroups) did exist, if i remember rightly it added better foreign language support and some bugfixes etc... but was otherwise identical to the normal 3.1, being more of a patch than a release134.36.93.46 (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WFW 3.11 Disks

You can search for WFWG 3.11 Disk Directories in Microsoft's Knowledge Base for the file listings on the WFW 3.11 disks.

IP Stack

I've seen a few attempts to change the wording to say that WfWG included a TCP/IP stack. As far as I know (and without writing my resume here, I'd know) it was required to run an add-on package. Maybe MS started shipping that add-on package in the box? Can someone point to authorative information that TCP/IP ever did ship in the retail product? SchmuckyTheCat 00:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• An anon went back to the version that said Wfwg shipped with a stack with a URL to this technet article: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/wfw/3_ch6.mspx. That's a useful article, but note the description of how to get TCP/IP onto the machine? It involves an add-on disk. It's not part of the core product. SchmuckyTheCat 02:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• The article mentions that Wolverine was released in August 1994 which provided limited TCP/IP support in Windows for Workgroups 3.11. It is correct, but I believe it can be extended a bit: there was previous TCP/IP support from Microsoft (at least as early as 1992, shipped with LanMan 2.1, to provide NetBios over IP), but the products before Wolverine were 16-bit based (so stole precious base memory), while Wolverine was VxD-based; the previous stack is said to BSD-based, and Wolverine is said to be a rewrite. I believe Wolverine should run on other 3.1x versions, but I did not check that: feel free to correct me. At the same moment there was the developement of WinSock, which emerged around that time frame and was the real thing which boosted TCP/IP over Windows. Both Wolverine and the previous 16-bit stack can drive 16-bit winsock.dll. Many of these relics (including Wolverine, as TCP32B.EXE) are still available at ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/bussys/Clients/WFW AntoineL 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The only copy I ever saw was a university using the Microsoft Stack, which was a separate product. Normal people used Trumpet winsock [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.166.15 (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft released a version of Internet Explorer which included their TCP/IP stack, a dialer and other software needed to connect to the internet. It worked well, if you wanted to run IE. Many ISPs licensed Trumpet Winsock and some dialer (did Trumpet include one or have it as a separate app?) in a bundle with Netscape Navigator so their customers didn't have to pay for Trumpet. AFAIK, plain vanilla Netscape would work with Mocrosoft's TCP/IP and dialer, but I recall it was a bit of a pain to change the default browser from IE if you installed Microsoft's all in one package. Bizzybody (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

MS Support

I have changed the Active State part, beacuse 1997 was the last year MS Supported Windows 3.1.

Aren't 'memory modes' in fact 'CPU modes'?

See Real mode and related articles: they all begin with ' XXX mode is an operating mode of YYY CPUs. ' --tyomitch 15:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm now editing this section. WRT this paragraph: "In either the Standard or the 386 Enhanced modes, Windows 3.1 had a functional limit of 256 MB of memory and in Windows 3.0, it is 16 MB. At the time, most 386 computers had 8 MB RAM or less, so if the memory consumed were to balloon to 256 MB, most of this would be as virtual memory on the hard disk, with massive paging slowdowns." – I don't know where it comes from. I've run WfW 3.11 with 640 MB RAM just for laugh; it takes an edit in system.ini, but runs fine otherwise. I'm removing the whole paragraph unless anyone gives me a hint confirming these limitations. --tyomitch 19:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Check the About box of Program Manager. - 65.110.28.180 19:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? I can't get your point. --tyomitch 09:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

He means that the 256 MB limitation was in Windows 3.1, and that Windows for Workgroups 3.11 didn't have it anymore. - OBrasilo 10:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Operating System?

I thought the 3.x versions of Microsoft Windows were shells, not operating systems. They required MS-DOS to be able to work.

They were OSes even though they required MS-DOS. Windows provided memory management, multitasking support, and means of inter-process communication: all the tasks an OS typically implements. The underlying MS-DOS was used for just disk access and not much else. --tyomitch 09:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• They were not actually OSes, because they require an OS to run. Windows 3.x was an operating environment which runs on top of MS-DOS as a graphical user interface shell. This is why MS-DOS is required to use Windows 3.x in the first place. Also, MS-DOS actually provided the memory management, not Windows, in the HIMEM.SYS file (DOS High Memory Management Device Driver). On a final note, in the Windows template (at the bottom of this article), Windows 3.x is in the MS-DOS based section, so this also means this article should call Windows 3.x an operating environment which runs on MS-DOS instead of an operating system. — Wackymacs 20:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Operating environment is defined as "GUI front-end"; Windows is far more than a GUI front-end -- see my comment above.

HIMEM.SYS just enables programs to access memory beyond the 1st MB; it's Windows to allocate it to all the running programs and to support virtual memory.

"MS-DOS based" doesn't mean that Windows isn't an OS. It only means that Windows uses portions of MS-DOS code. --tyomitch 21:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Windows 3.x are not "MS-DOS based" - they run ON MS-DOS. Windows 3.x don't use any portions of the MS-DOS code. Also, if you try to run Windows 3.x without HIMEM.SYS loaded, it will complain that HIMEM.SYS is not loaded, and return to the MS-DOS prompt. HIMEM.SYS does allocate the memory for Windows 3.x, then Windows 3.x just allocates parts of the memory, allocated to it, to other programs. And "operating environment" is NOT a GUI front-end - an operating environment is a GUI front-end + kernel, and requires a pre-existing OS to run on. Windows STARTED as Interface Manager, which was GUI front-end, but even at the 1.x stage, it became an operating environment, with programs written specifically for it. - OBrasilo 10:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• This point can be made as specious as one wants! For example, one says that Windows needs DOS (not really MS-DOS, by the way) to run. But at the same time, DOS needs BIOS to perform about anything. And the beauty of the drawing is that Windows (WfW3.11) removes about any dependancy from the BIOS! (Andrew Schulman wrote about 200 pages this about in Unauthorized Windows 95, ISBN:1-56884-169-8). Similarly, Windows 95 is a packaged product which include both MS-DOS 7.x and "Windows" 4.x, both successors of the previous versions. On the other hand, programming VxD was very specific to Windows 3.x (along with Windows/386 2.0x and Windows 9x), about nothing is related to MS-DOS in this area, even if MS-DOS is the "subject of operation". Still another point is that with Windows 3.x, in enhanced mode, you certainly can run several tasks at the same time, something which is generally difficult to achieve with DOS. And Windows 3.x runs in standard mode with the DOSX extender, which is a simple, VCPI-compatible, DPMI server, which can be replaced (althought this is not easy) by a functional similacrum, to the point to run Windows 3.x without DOS: this is exactly how Win-OS/2 worked.

I believe an operative definition is to consider an OS as a resource manager (that is how OS/360 was designed, and how I was taught OS theory); and Windows 3.x certainly manage resources (like memory, video space, even files when it comes to 32FDA in WfW3.11), and in a very different way from what is happening when using the bare MS-DOS, in real or V86 mode). However, Windows 3.x shares a large part of its programming API, which is probably the reason for the confusion. AntoineL 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Windows is a brand name for the MS operating system. It was also a range of products over several years which started as gui available as a runtime for gui programs, competing with Gem, and slowly diverged from MSDOS, picking up it's own memory system, then it's own file system, then it's own input system one piece at time. The divergence was substantially complete with the release of Windows 98. 150.101.166.15 (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In many ways I think Windows 3.x changed the very definition of "Operating System!" There are many complicating issues-- Windows NT 3 was presented at the same time: when it was a radically different system, based on a VMS-like microkernel. It also wouldn't have been too controversial for Microsoft to call Windows 3, "the new DOS (with window manager)!" Although they didn't, presumeably for marketing reasons. Even though certain code distinguished Win from 16-bit DOS, its design was DOS-based. So it comes down to how you define an Operating System. For a similar(pointless?) controversy in another OS, review debates about whether Linux is an OS or only a kernel, and whether it should be called GNU/Linux (as GNU software tools+linux kernel) instead of just Linux. Cuvtixo (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW Here's a link to article on the abovementioned Digital Research's Graphical Environment Manager-- it was not marketed as an OS, but perhaps it should have been! Cuvtixo (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Even though certain code distinguished Win from 16-bit DOS, its design was DOS-based." That was an intermediate stage. Windows started out as a GUI application which ran on DOS. It finished as Win98ME, a 32 bit OS which could run a 16 bit subsystem.

It doesn't just come down to how you define an operating system (or what name you call it): it also comes down to which year you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.166.15 (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguments by Tyomitch and others that Windows 3.1x is an operating system are completely specious. One cannot boot Windows 3.1x or any of Windows 95's predecessors directly; MS-DOS or an equivalent operating system must be started first. Windows 3.1x is a graphical user interface or graphical shell, and nothing more, even though it includes a number of new utilities and features not provided in DOS. When Windows 3.1 is terminated, one finds oneself at -- you guessed it -- the DOS command prompt. (It's even arguable that Windows 9x releases are just graphical shells, running on top of MS-DOS 7, a 32-bit version of the earlier operating system.) —Quicksilver^{T @} 17:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong to assert that I can't boot directly to Win 3.1. I assume that when you say "one cannot boot directly", you mean that you do not know how to boot directly -- not quite the same thing. Still, sort of with you until you got to "nothing more". Unlike the understandable first error, the second error really detracts from the strength of your semantic assertions. 203.206.162.148 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? You CANNOT boot directly into Windows 3.1 without DOS. If your computer appears to do this, it is because someone has added WIN.COM to your AUTOEXEC.BAT file, which DOS automatically executes on start-up.SmackEater (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't boot into Windows 7 without some initial help from the BIOS. Does that mean Windows 7 isn't an OS? The fact that Win 3.1 uses DOS as its loader doesn't make Win 3.1 "not an OS." Heck, even using some of the "loader's" code once it's running does not make Win 3.1 "not an OS." Jeh (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the Windows 3.0 retail box right in front of me (bought back in 1992), and Microsoft never called it Operating System. Prior versions of Windows before Windows 95 were called GRAPHICAL ENVIRONMENT (you can see a small screenshot of the box here). Despite all the arguments above, it is technically wrong to call Windows 3.x an operating system. DOS was the Operating System. Sure, Windows 9x/ME were also based on DOS, but the product was marketed (emphasis on 'market', not just 'branded) as an Operating System. The install process of Windows 9x would install the underlying DOS with the Windows 9x. Windows 3.0 on the other hand was an application that could run on MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS or even OS/2. :But I honestly don't see the need to go through all this argument. Again, simply check the retail box of Windows 3.0. Microsoft never called it an Operating System, and never marketed it as such. --Pinnecco (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Plus if anyone has access to the computer magazines at the time of Windows 9x announcement (aka 'Chicago'), this whole issue has been covered in great detail. Moreover, Windows 3.x is to DOS what Gnome or KDE is to Linux. You might as well start saying that Gnome or KDE are operating systems? Here is a better resolution of the Windows 3.0 box. --Pinnecco (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Windows 3.0 article does indeed say "Operating Environment" instead of "Operating System", however this is the 3.1x article for which the box clearly includes the word Operating System on it, as well as the majority of the sources for the article. It may or may not be strictly true, but it is verifiable. --Mrmatiko (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing Windows 3.1 here which described itself as an operating system: [3]. In any case it is easy to adopt a very simplistic position - Windows needed DOS to load, DOS is an operating system, therefore Windows can't be one. It reality it is nowhere near as clear as that. Think of it in terms of the facilities an operating system provides:

• Memory management - done by Windows. It has often been said that eliminating the 640Kb limit is the reason Windows 3 and successors really took of when prior version were sidelined.
• Device management. This one is a bit murky. Disk management was done by Windows if you had 32 bit file access enabled. Your sound and graphics cards were managed by Windows. It would use DOS calls to access a CD drive but they would be passed to the CD-ROM device driver rather than DOS. Networking could use either model - NetBIOS was Windows but if you were using Novell the situation was similar to the CD-ROM.
• Process management. This one is easy, DOS had no concept of processes.
• An API. DOS had one. Windows had its own. There is no DOS call to create a window.

The situation is not akin to Gnome or KDE (or more precisely X) to Linux. Essentially DOS is used as not much more than a bootloader. Is Linux not an operating system because it requires GRUB or similar to load it? What about Windows 95 through ME? They used DOS underneath them too. The fact that DOS was included with those versions of Windows was effectively a re-packaging job. Does something as trivial as that fundamentally alter what the system as a whole is? Crispmuncher (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

I reckon that saying "essentially DOS is used as not much more than a bootloader" is subjective when speaking about Windows 3.1x. Yes Windows 95 also came up with DOS underneath but there are significant differences when you compare it with Windows 3.1x. The most important is how both DOS and Windows 3.1 were marketed. Both were sold separately and Windows 3.1 could perfectly run under other OSes by running SETUP.EXE under PC-DOS or DR-DOS (although Microsoft tried to avoid this with some malicious code, there were no real technical limitations). Windows 3.1x works as a graphical environment as it still relies a lot on DOS for some of its I/O. Windows 95 is different because the DOS code has been modified to allow a more seamless fusion with Windows 95. Installing Windows 3.1x wouldn't modify your boot record or tamper with any OS files. --89.101.157.129 (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

COMMAND.COM, IO.SYS and MS-DOS.SYS (or the other names of the latter two for non-MS versions) from DOS had to load first and stay in RAM for Windows 3.11 and older. AFAIK they could not be "kicked out" of RAM and leave Windows running. The only version of the 3.x series able to dispense with most BIOS calls was Windows For Workgroups 3.11 - and that only if the hardware *and* any drivers loaded through CONFIG.SYS and/or AUTOEXEC.BAT had 32 bit support for Windows to bypass BIOS calls. WFWG 3.11 had two separate checkboxes, one for 32 bit disk access and one for 32 bit file access. Windows would detect if either or both or neither was supported and would grey out one or both options if they were not. It was pointless to only turn on one because of speed hits due to having to thunk between 32 bit mode and 16 bit BIOS access. But anyway, since all the core parts of DOS had to load first and stay in RAM, Windows 3.x is a graphical operating environment running on top of DOS. What could be changed is the Shell program. The default was PROGMAN.EXE but there were several 3rd party shells, some a single app and some meant to completely replace PROGMAN.EXE as the environment. It was also possible to replace the shell with a single task program like a web browser. Doing that locked out access to the rest of the file system as long as that app had no file system access. I recall there's a way to setup the last 16 bit version of Internet Explorer in a kiosk mode as the shell program. The reason for doing this was when the shell was quit, Windows itself would quit. Another part of a kiosk setup with Win 3.1x was to have WIN.COM automatically relaunch if it quit. (Shell replacements are also possible with Windows 95 and 98. I did that once with a 68K Mac emulator on 95b on a 75Mhz Pentium Dell to make it appear to be booting Mac OS 8.1.) Bizzybody (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

COMMAND.COM could be unloaded even under DOS applications if need be. If you ever used a floppy installtion you'd occasionally be asked to re-insert the boot disk after exiting an application so that it could be reinvoked. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

I went so far as to once make COMMAND.COM my shell for an instance of Windows 95 OSR2 where EXPLORER.EXE kept crashing. What Operating System I was using is a bit of a blur at that point. Real-Mode DOS 7 would load Windows 95, VxDs would shim and replace DOS interrupts, and then Windows would load DOS 7, this time with LFN support.

This isn't easy to detangle because it doesn't conform to classical definitions. There is no clear distinction between the OS, the Environment, and the User applications and at times those roles may shift. Raymond Chen's blog The Old New Thing may provide us with the closest thing to a true understanding in the post ″What was the role of MS-DOS in Windows 95?″:

When Windows 95 started up, a customized version of MS-DOS was loaded, and it's that customized version that processed your CONFIG.SYS file, launched COMMAND.COM, which ran your AUTOEXEC.BAT and which eventually ran WIN.COM, which began the process of booting up the VMM, or the 32-bit virtual machine manager. 
The customized version of MS-DOS was fully functional as far as the phrase "fully functional" can be applied to MS-DOS in the first place. It had to be, since it was all that was running when you ran Windows 95 in "single MS-DOS application mode." 
The WIN.COM program started booting what most people think of as "Windows" proper. It used the copy of MS-DOS to load the virtual machine manager, read the SYSTEM.INI file, load the virtual device drivers, and then it turned off any running copy of EMM386 and switched into protected mode. It's protected mode that is what most people think of as "the real Windows." 
Once in protected mode, the virtual device drivers did their magic. Among other things those drivers did was "suck the brains out of MS-DOS," transfer all that state to the 32-bit file system manager, and then shut off MS-DOS. All future file system operations would get routed to the 32-bit file system manager. If a program issued an int 21h, the 32-bit file system manager would be responsible for handling it.
...
In other words, MS-DOS was just an extremely elaborate decoy. Any 16-bit drivers and programs would patch or hook what they thought was the real MS-DOS, but which was in reality just a decoy. If the 32-bit file system manager detected that somebody bought the decoy, it told the decoy to quack.

I don't believe there is much to be gained by debating whether or not it is an Operating System by a strict definition. You can't even make a distinction between User Mode and Kernel Mode. Fundamentally, unless you are looking at gates on the CPU, it's all software and all the other lines become harder to distinguish because they are arbitrary constructs. Instead of trying to force things to fit our contrived technical definition of an Operating System, it makes far more sense to evaluate things from the user's perspective. In this, Windows before Windows 95 are Graphical Environments and Windows 95 and beyond are Operating Systems, despite Windows 3.11 (and WfW) going so far as to remap and replace low-level DOS functionality and Windows 95 requiring a Real-Mode DOS to bootstrap its initialization. For the Windows 3.1 user they would run WIN.COM from a DOS Prompt, but the Windows 95 user turns on their computer -- Graphical Environment, Operating System. --Trogdorb (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for rocking the boat a little, guys. I came along to clarify the intro a bit. But unfortunately, its most wonderfully accurate prose was stricken down by a later editor, in the interest of explicitly precise citations. Maybe someone can find the citation to concretely justify restoring it to its former correctness. It had said this: Windows 3.1x is a series of 16-bit operating system shells, marketed as operating systems Smuckola (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, can we stop the "this is an operating system" silliness? I just effortlessly installed and started Windows 3.1 in DosBox, of all places (running in full "enhanced" mode too as others had mentioned it could), and took another look at the original README.WRI. Section 1.0 of the same reads as follows (all emphasis mine):

1.0 Running Windows with an Operating System Other Than MS-DOS
Microsoft Windows and MS-DOS work together as an integrated system. They were designed together [...] . 
Running Windows version 3.1 on an operating system other than MS-DOS could cause unexpected results or
poor performance.

Not only can this "operating system" trivially be a layer above several completely independent programs that are perfectly usable systems in their own right, but even the official documentation Windows 3.1 ships with does not once explicitly refer to it as an operating system (no, not in any of the other chapters either). I hope that's enough. No qwach macken (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrx9ocftsoxo84c/win3.1.png A picture for the nonbelievers among you. Also note that much of the discussion up to now consists of random opinionating. No qwach macken (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello guys. Faith, truth and analysis are valuable but the Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability. That means one should cite a reliable source like this or this that says Windows 3.1 is an operating system. (Or maybe a reliable source that says something else.) Synthesis of published material that advances a position, like what User:No qwach macken did above, is not allowed. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of sources saying its a graphical environment rather than an operating system atleast we should mention it in the article 1 2 3 4(hints so) 5 6 7 8,9 10 An introduction to Microsoft Windows 3.1 June Jamrich Parsons

11 Windows 3.1 Fundamentals Carolyn Z. Gillay

13 New perspectives on Microsoft Windows 2000 MS-DOS command line: comprehensive Harry L. Phillips, Eric Skagerberg

14 http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-00028571.htm

15 http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f1200/1277_10b.pdf sort of

Catverine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Full OS or MS-DOS shell?

(See additional discussion at Talk:Windows_3.1x#Operating_System.3F, above.)

That headline goes unanswered I suppose... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.165.190 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

This section applies to several versions of Windows, so shouldn't it be in a more version-neutral article than Windows 3.1x? Josh the Nerd 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

All versions of Windows are "something that runs on something", in the sense that there is no unique Win32 or Win16 boot loader. None the same, once it is booted from DOS, it takes over the computer, and DOS becomes a real-mode driver that happens to get fed whatever Windows needs to feed it. Still, Netware and Deskview do the same thing: Netware boots from DR-DOS, and then proceeds to loads drivers etc that DOS can not run.

Unlike OS/2, and i presume, Linux, the text-mode setup of Windows NT is a different beast to the command prompt. Very few applications will run here (except for some specially written apps like O&O Bluecon, CmdCons).

--Wendy.krieger (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion up there mentioned that Windows 3.0 is an "operating environment" and was marketed as such, while Windows 3.1 is an OS. But the very name "Windows 3.1" implies a mere incremental improvement over the previous version. I was under the impression that the whole reason Microsoft changed the format of the name with Windows 95 was that they were making the transition to a true Windows OS, and thus wanted to make sure it wouldn't be confused for merely an enhanced version of Windows 3.1. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Operating system or GUI?

Is it proper to call Windows 3.1 an operating system? The Windows 3.0 calls it a Graphical user interface. Windows through 3.1 and 95, 98, and Me used DOS as the o.s. Windows 2.0 calls it an Operating environment. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is proper to call it an OS. While it did depend on a DOS implementation to start, and allowed you to stop and drop back into that same DOS, it also added e.g. (a limited form of) memory protection, shared binaries (DLL's) that could be used by multiple processes (or tasks, as they were referred to back then IIRC). I'm not 100% sure about 3.10, but I do know that 3.11 got both native disk cache and even a TCP-IP stack (both 32-bit even, if memory serves), and a lot more than any DOS by itself could do. While it did have fallback paths like mscdex.exe (?) driving CD-ROM drives at the time, most of what it did was self-contained, and the parts that weren't were mostly (only?) to provide compatibility with DOS and the large amount of DOS programs able to run in the "DOS-Box" - and of course the ability to terminate itself and return to that DOS mode. But as DOS was mainly for bootstrapping, much like e.g. Linux, NT, or just about any system needs a boot-loader too, I'm very much inclined calling Windows 3.1x an Operating System. 9x discussions do not apply (except to say they definitely didn't use DOS as their OS). 87.227.18.143 (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The Windows 95 article says "Windows 95 integrated Microsoft's formerly separate MS-DOS and Windows products." You couldn't run Windows 3.1 without DOS, so it seems to me that DOS was the OS and Windows was the interface. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows 3.1 replaced the better part of DOS in memory and took over most device handling. For all intents and purposes, it is an operating system. — Edokter (talk) — 23:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The article says "...which typically came with DOS 6.22 on one CD". Why did it come with DOS if it didn't need DOS? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a good reference, but this says:

Windows 3.1 is not entirely a new operating system, it is a graphical interface that is "built over" MS-DOS. This type of operating system is referred to as a DOS "Shell" utility. Windows 3.1 translates a user's point-and-click instructions into DOS commands for DOS to execute. Any request that is entered through the Windows 3.1 graphical user interface shell will inevitably be performed by the MS-DOS operating system.

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

And see Operating system shell. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows started out as an operating environment rather then a mere shell. By the time WfW 3.11 came out, all DOS/hardware function were virtualized, and DOS itself was only used as a bootstrap, much like Windows 95; it did not run "on top" of DOS, it completely replaced it in memory. The fact that DOS was needed to load Windows is not the main factor here. — Edokter (talk) — 10:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And yet, Windows 3.1 can run entirely inside a DOSBOX window on a 32 bit OS (indeed, that's the only way to get it to work beyond VGA mode with today's graphics adaptors), and when you look at it that way, it certainly seems like nothing more than a fancy graphical shell for MS-DOS Linuxgal (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It could do so only in 16-bit 'Standards mode' (which even WfW 3.11 no longer had), definitely not in 32-bit '386-enhanced mode', as the host OS already has taken control of the CPU's virtual addressing capabilities. You really need to know the inner workings of Windows a bit more before stating such poor arguments. — Edokter (talk) — 22:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, it not only runs 386-Enhanced under DosBox, it can run in multiple instances of DosBox. I'm not making an idle boast, or repeating something I think I remember from long ago, here's a screenshot from last October. Linuxgal (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC) http://www.cleanposts.com/images/1/12/Win3120121026.jpg

Split proposal

I think that the article should be split into Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1 (or Windows 3.1x again, whence it was moved on January 11, 2003), because most links to here mean either of them two, and not both. Also there's comparatively little content now that applies to both of them. Cf. older comments:

This article seems to be more about Windows 3.x than 3.1x specifically. Should it be renamed? --Brion 21:57 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

I've usually seen 3.x, so that's probably a better name for it. (There was a Windows 3.0, also) -- Wapcaplet

--tyomitch 13:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

History from MS, 1.01 through 3.11

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-GB;q32905

Details on 1.01 through 3.11 Standard Edition. 3.11 (NOT For Workgroups) was definately a seperate, complete product. I encountered it on many OEM PCs made between 1993 and 1995.

I'm still hunting for info specific to the Workgroups for Windows add-on package. I saw it in many computer catalogs in the 93 to 95 years, right next to the listings for WFWG 3.11. Anyone have an old Computer Shopper from back then? :)

3.11 12/31/93 Requirements

                    - Same as version 3.1

                   Changes

                    - Certificate of Authenticity
                    - More sophisticated hologram and an MS (3M) sticker
                      on box
                    - An 800 number to call (in the United States &
                      Canada) and check for product legitimacy
                    - Updated drivers
                    - Five updated core files
                    - NetWare support files (from Novell)

Win310 was the first package, both OEM and upgrade.

Wfw310 followed. It was very slow, poorly marketed, and was dubbed "Windows for Warehouses" (part of the Windows Everywhere schema). It's kind of like Win310 with Networking tools.

Wfw311 appeared. Many of the problems that plagued Wfw310 had beem fixed, and it ran faster than Win310 on similar hardware. Microsoft pushed it hard as replacement for both OEM and upgrade. It should be noted here, as with DOS, that the intent was to distance Windows from OS/2. DOS 6.x included the OS2.TXT file (how to delete OS/2 if found), and Windows 3.1x included some new features that were incompatable with the then current OS/2 2.1x for Windows. IBM worked around these!

Win311 appeared as an OEM version. It's pretty much Win310, with drivers updated, and a new setup to handle the better compression given by compress.exe v1. (KWAJ). The version has something to do with Microsoft trying to comandeer the then-active market for peer-to-peer networking (eg netware lite, baynan vines, etc).

Wfw311ao appeared. It is, like the DOS Step-Up disks meant to replace an earlier version of W31x. It's a complete version of Wfw311, with a hacked setup. Disks 2-8 are indeed identical.

The Windows 3,51 server disk includes Wfw3.11 setup and patches (eg tcp/ip, y2k). However, none of these patches are slipstreamed, it's exactly as if you install Wfw 3.11 from the original diskettes, and then install the various patches.

--Wendy.krieger (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But will Wfw311ao (Workgroups for Windows 3.11) install on a 286 running Windows 3.1 or 3.11 in Standard Mode? Or does it upgrade to Windows For Workgroups 3.11 which only runs in 386 Enhanced Mode? If it does that, does it also add 32 bit disk access and 32 bit file access? Bizzybody (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Windows 3.2

I corrected the short paragraph on Windows 3.2 and added a screenshot. It's based on wfwg, it includes all the stuff you expect from wfwg like the ms-mail client and networking add-ons (some of that isn't localized either). I didn't use these two images, but if anyone likes them better than the splash screen they could be swapped out. SchmuckyTheCat 15:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have Windows 3.2 on my hard disk and it doesn't have any WFW features. Actually, there has been Simplified Chinese Windows 3.1 released in the 1993, and Windows 3.2 is simply an updated version of that, with some different icons and new and improved IME's (Input Method Editors). Source for this information: my testing of both version, and this article: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;129451 , which as you can see, comes from Microsoft themselves.

I think that the reason why you thought it was based on Windows FWG 3.1 or 3.11 is that you have probably installed Windows 3.2 over Windows FWG 3.1 or 3.11, so of course, the Windows FWG 3.1 or 3.11 additional programs were preserved. I think it's kinda obviuos, since you yourself clearly said that some of the stuff you have in Windows 3.2 is not localized - if it was actually part of Windows 3.2, it would have been localized. - OBrasilo 17:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My install was not an update. I installed it clean simply to take those screenshots. SchmuckyTheCat 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Then please make some screenshots of MS Mail and the Network Add-Ons that are supposed be in Windows 3.2. If you manage to do that, and those features really are there, then maybe what you have is a rare Windows for Workgroups 3.2 edition. - OBrasilo 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If the images are Fair use we really can't use them on the talk page, linking to them works, so I changed them to a link. PPGMD 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All screenshots of MS software are used with permission, not fair use. There is no prescription against using them on a talk page. SchmuckyTheCat 05:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That cannot be true. As a big DOS/Win3.x fan from China DOS Union, I frequently play around with DOS and Windows 3.2 (Chinese version of course). The WFW features are NOT included in Windows 3.2. There exists a seperate Chinese version of Windows for Workgroups 3.11 which I have also installed, which is distinct from Windows 3.2.--Wengier 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Three one one

I've read through the above discussion, and I side with SchmuckyTheCat against the man who didn't sign his comments. The bit where he says "Who am I? Just someone with 22 years of computer experience etc" angered me with its naked display of self-righteous narcissism. However, I'm confused by the following text in the article:

Windows 3.11 was not a standalone version of Windows, but rather an update from Windows 3.1, much like modern Windows service packs. For those who did not own Windows 3.1, full disk sets of Windows 3.11 were sold.

It seems to contradict itself. Does it mean to say that "for those who did own Windows 3.1, full disk sets of Windows 3.11 were sold", or does it mean to say that "later editions of Windows 3.1 were bundled with the 3.11 upgrade as an integral component", or something else? I would like to know this so that when I rewrite that paragraph it is not misleading. Lupine Proletariat 10:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Windows 3.11 (non FWG) was a separate product. Of course, there was the update patch, but it didn't update everything. For instance, the full product also had an updated SETUP.EXE file (and until Windows FWG 3.11, SETUP.EXE had both the DOS and the Windows parts of Setup, so it was indeed installed into the Windows directory as well), and some other files as well, including SETUP.INF. If I'm not wrong, Windows 3.11 (non FWG) even had some updated network drivers or something, but I'm not sure. I'll check that when I come back home (should be on Friday). Windows 3.11 (non FWG) was also released in several languages, including Thai and Turkish. - OBrasilo 17:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

3.11 (non FWG) in the full package included either 32 bit disk access *or* 32 bit file access (been a long time since I've used it!) if run on a 80386 or higher CPU. But since it only had one of those, enabling it was pointless because it still had to thunk between 16 and 32 bit during file operations. The only benefit came with WFWG 3.11 that had both 32 bit disk and file access - but the hardware and all DOS drivers for storage loaded before Windows had to support both. With both enabled it made things faster because Windows could bypass the BIOS for file operations. If your PC couldn't support both, one or both of the checkboxes to enable them in windows was greyed out. I ran 3.11 on a 286 with 12 megs RAM (two four meg Micron and one Everex three meg ISA boards full of DIP chips plus one meg on motherboard). I upgraded to WFWG 3.11 with my first 386 but I do remember wishing I had a 386 with 3.11 so I could enable that lone 32 bit checkbox to see if it would go faster. What I do wonder is if the 3.1 to 3.11 update did *not* include that small bit of early 32 bitness? Bizzybody (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hazy memories here too, but that does not ring true. From memory Windows 3.0 introduced 32-bit disk access (swapfile only) which was supplemented with file access (everything else) in 3.1, and yes, both at the same time. I do have a Windows 3.1 VM here that I may fire up and check. As a side note, something isn't quite right about that memory either: memory on ISA boards would be completely useless to Windows which has always used extended and not expanded memory. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

The Micron ISA boards had a configuration EEPROM and software to configure any amount of their capacity as XMS or EMS. So I setup some as EMS for some DOS programs that used it, with the rest as XMS. Bizzybody (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Janus merge

I support the proposed merger. There does not seem to be enough information (yet) to justify a separate article. -- Seitz 04:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Errr... there is actually a lot of information and even screenshots about Janus. I can provide screenshots of builds 034 and 061d (Final Beta Release), as well as of the DOS portion of the Setup of build 068 (Pre-Release Build), and I can also provide a detailed description of the so-called AARD Detection Code, which has been incorporated into some files in build 061d, and remained until Windows FWG 3.11, when it was finally removed (although it was disabled in the final version of Windows 3.1 and all subsequent Windows 3.1x versions, up to Windows FWG 3.11, but including Windows 3.2).

I can also provide a detailed description of those 3 builds, as well as how they differ among each other, from Windows 3.0, and from the final version of Windows 3.1.

So, summarized, I think that a separate article for Janus is more than justified. - OBrasilo 18:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong back then. Janus was not the codename of Windows 3.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBrasilo (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh?

This sentence is extremely unclear: "Pre-NT Windows systems, not only 3.x and earlier but also 95, 98 and ME, have a complex, original, hybrid and not fully documented internal structure that differ across modes, which was, in order of more complexity and more like operating systems and less DOS use, real mode, standard mode, and 386 enhanced mode." Normally, I would probably just re-write the sentence myself, but in this case, I cannot figure out what it is even trying to say. --Miken2005 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems the sentence I'm complaining about was edited by 65.110.29.85 on 11 July 2006. Since the version prior to then is clearer, and no other edits have been made since then, I've reverted the article to its previous version. If the bit added by 65.110.29.85 is significant, please re-write it in a clear fashion. --Miken2005 20:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How about "The Windows that descended from 1,0 (including 95,9 98, ME), booted from DOS, and used DOS as a device driver. The DOS/Windows interface was not documented, and various transgressions to published interfaces were made in the line of efficency. This served also to make it harder for other OS manufacturers, like DRI and IBM, to adjust their operating systems to run Windows. The increasing amounts of memory lead to a transition from real-mode operations (Windows 1.0 is a shell, Windows 2.x and later are operating systems), to protected mode (in the form of standard and enhanced). Since the more advanced memory models require more system memory to run, one would tend to boot windows into a mode that was more compatable with installed memory and the application at hand. Real mode was last used in Windows 3.0, Standard mode was removed in Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (Windows 3.11 had it).

A new kernel was developed in the form of NT, designed to replace DOS and its limitations. This appeared in Windows NT 3.10, however, it was not until 2002 that hardware became common enough for Microsoft to switch users from DOS-based Windows to NT-based windows (in the shape of Windows XP). --Wendy.krieger (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Delay to release of Windows 3.1 due to coders' obsession with Lemmings for the Acorn Archimedes

Can anyone (or does anyone know of anyone) who can personally corroborate this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lemmings_%28video_game%29#Delay_to_Windows_3.1_development_due_to_programmers.27_obsession_with_Lemmings_for_the_Acorn_Archimedes --Sctb 20:17, 02 August 2006 (UTC)

To the 'Citation needed' comment for the release date

The release date of the current version (Win 3.11 for Workgroups) is 11/1/1993 as per http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3128. Someone please update it and give the citation. Shijaz 05:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)