Crossposted from https://ibbit.at/post/217882
Although Windows 95 stole the show, Windows 3.0 was arguably the first version of Windows that more or less nailed the basic Windows UI concept, with the major 3.1 update being quite recognizable to a modern-day audience. Even better is that you can still install Win3.1 on a modern x86-compatible PC and get some massive improvements along the way, as [Omores] demonstrates in a recent video.
The only real gotcha here is that the AMD AM5 system with Asus Prime X670-P mainboard is one of those boards whose UEFI BIOS still has the ‘classic BIOS’ Compatibility Support Module (CSM) option. With that enabled, Win 3.1 installs without further fuss via a USB floppy drive from a stack of ‘backup’ floppies that someone made in the early 90s. [Omores] also tried it with CSMWrap, but with this USB to PS/2 emulation didn’t work.
Windows 3.1 supports ‘enhanced mode’ by default, which adds virtual memory and multi-tasking if you have an 80386 CPU or better. To fix crashing on boot and having to use ‘standard mode’ instead, the ahcifix.386 fix for the responsible SATA issue by [PluMGMK] should help, or a separate SATA expansion card.
For the video driver the vbesvga.drv by [PluMGMK] was used, to support all VESA BIOS Extensions modes. This driver has improved massively since we last covered it and works great with an RTX 5060 Ti GPU. There’s now even DCI support to enable direct GPU VRAM access for e.g. video playback, with audio also working great with only a few driver-related gotchas.
From Blog – Hackaday via this RSS feed
Anything to avoid co-pilot.
I believe you can run windows 3.1 on freedos which can run natively on basically anything
I run 3.11 on Proxmox for fun. The only thing that doesn’t work right is changing the video from VGA.
Where’s copilot, shareholders need copilot
@jqubed Yeah, but I can’t go back to 8.3 length filenames. That, IMHO, was Windows 95’s biggest improvement.
This is cool! I’d have to ask: any chance of having a realistic real-world usage with it these days?
Honestly, no. What did you have in mind?
What I got in mind is mostly on dealing with older machineries. Vintage luxury cars are especially infamous for deprecating their tools to oblivion (fancy a 1980s BMW, anyone?). There are also CNC machines that predate the internet.
I was also thinking of MRI machines and commercial airplanes, but I doubt anyone would be working on them for fun.
That’s what I was thinking: running old software needed for specific machines
Don’t get me wrong, I do love the look and feel of progman and windows 3.0~3.51, but its because it felt like AmigaOS and Workbench. The Windowbuttons are in the exact same place, the gadget kinds were also the same.
But we had Borland Delphi for win3.x which was nice to play with.
I’m guessing the big issue here will be software lacking support for multi-threading. At least that’s the impression I got watching the LGR video on Bryce 3D.
Even some light threading or ability to user newer instruction sets/math etc might help but probably no easy way to do that unless some really smart people make patches or something. And even then, I might see someone so inclined to do so via WINE or even just that they’d use Blender instead.
If you are running Win 3.1 on modern hardware, I don’t think you care about maximizing performance of your 30 year old software. Even without multi threaded software, the CPU is still over 100x faster than a 1992 66mhz 486.
But think of the FPS increases you can get from games of the era like F-117 Night Hawk, Doom, or the original Wing Commanders!
Have to rewrite game engines for that, like GZDoom source port added multi-threading but it only gains 10-20% perf improvement with 2 threads.
Sure, but when you’re doing a 5-hour render and it’s using something like 1/64th of your CPU (for LGR’s Threadripper example) that is a lot of room for improvement even if you don’t care about ‘maximum’. Especially for rendering multiple frames.
I mean a slight upside is that it is a lighter workload and it shouldn’t impact system usability.
Why would you boot Win 3.1 to do a render?
The first version of Bryce for Windows was for NT4 in 1997. The last version from 2010 still runs on Windows 11.
You’re right, I wouldn’t. None of what I said is specific to 3.1, and I do use Blender for ancient techniques (visible vertex color) rather than old software (even though I would like something simpler).
As to why anyone would do it? Familiarity and a “workstation” feel I’d guess, especially the more in-era stuff is added (software workflow, CRTs, scanners/printers). Maybe it’s just another way to avoid the modern mess of ads, AI, frequent updates/changes etc.
For someone producing a retro project, I could also see using an older OS as something akin to method acting (similar-to but-not-quite ‘dogfooding’). Stew in the exact design language and technical sensibilities you’re trying to replicate, rather than reading about it or looking at screenshots.
Bryce 3D was also just an example (and LGR’s video being the exact sort of energy I’m talking about), though I’m not sure how the newest version would compare on workflow and aesthetic. Seems like it’s more focused on realistic landscapes.
