| > For you to downvote my small comment I didn't. I checked. I have not. > go on to lecture me about things you have barely any grasp or memory of, No, this is not true or accurate. It is a personal attack. I am a tech professional and I was back then as well. I ran Windows 2.0 and deployed 3.0 in production; I deployed and supported Windows 3.0, 3.1, Windows for Workgroups 3.1 (a different product of little importance except historically), 3.11 (a minor service pack), Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (a totally separate product you don't even mention), as well as NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4, 2000, XP, Server 2003, Vista, and more. By casually mentioning something that barely mattered -- Windows 3.11 -- you show me that you know less than me about this stuff, and which I recall vividly and clearly. I still run OS/2 today. I reviewed the current version, because yes it is still alive: https://www.theregister.com/software/2023/09/04/arcaos-51-gi... I interviewed the company founder: https://www.theregister.com/software/2023/01/19/os/2-warp-on... Contrary to your claims, you are attempting to lecture me and I am not putting up with that. I built and supported entire corporate networks of Windows for Workgroups 3.11 computers, and I found bugs in it I personally filed with Microsoft, before Microsoft even had a website. Windows 3.11 merits a single paragraph on Wikipedia and even that is substantially incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1#Windows_3.11 It did not have any peer-to-peer networking: that is the editors confusing Windows 3.11 with the totally separate Windows for Workgroups 3.11. The distinguishing feature of WfWg is peer-to-peer networking. You claims are factually incorrect. Windows 3.11 was not the first mainstream GUI for PCs. Neither was Windows 3.1, a different earlier product. If anything it was DR GEM, which I have written about as well. https://www.theregister.com/software/2022/08/04/the-many-der... You'll find my name in the release notes for FreeGEM, because I was involved in that project in the 1990s. Windows 3.0 was the first mainstream version of Windows. I was there and told my boss he should order as many copies as he could get because it would sell out on the day of launch (May 1990). We had a queue outside the door before we opened at 9AM that morning. We had a grand total of 17 copies. They all sold in the first 2 minutes. I was right; he was wrong, and so are you. Windows 3.11 or any from 3.0 to the final 3.2 did not require 4MB of RAM. Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 and Windows for Workgroups ran perfectly well in 2MB of RAM and did not require 4MB, which was a high-end PC in 1992. You can even force Win3.1 to start in 386 Enhanced Mode on a 1MB RAM PC (with the `/3` switch) and I did it at work almost every day. 3.0 ran fine in 1MB and 3.1 was perfectly usable in that little. As I recall, both wanted a minimum of 1MB for Standard Mode, the 286 protect-mode mode, but it could be forced with a command line switch (`/2` or `/s`) and 2MB for 386 Enhanced Mode. https://forum.winworldpc.com/discussion/9906/windows-3-0-3-1... OS/2 2.0 in 4MB was a normal config and it's what I used on all 3 or 4 of my machines which ran OS/2: two Librex ones and my own Sunrace 486DX50 (note, not DX2) laptop. I couldn't afford more memory. You are dead wrong. I remember this very well indeed, thank you, and that's why I do things like go on stage and tell the world's largest FOSS conference that they're doing it wrong. https://archive.fosdem.org/2018/interviews/liam-proven/ Sure, OS/2 2.0 as a protect-mode 32-bit OS would be better in 8MB and I am sure much better in 16MB, but I never even saw a PC with 16MB of RAM until over a year later. I deployed NT 3.1 in production in 1993, before its first service pack, and then I ordered that user (our brokerage's Head of Research, Eric) a 16MB PC and the thing cost over £5000. My editor at PC Pro Magazine in 1995, Derek, got the first 32MB upgrade for any of our desktops, and that was so he could run the shiny new Windows 95. I remember this stuff in a great deal more detail than you do, and what you think you remember is wrong. Every single number you cite is wrong, both version numbers and memory numbers. |