OT: Win 3.11, 95/98

(snip)

There it is. 16-bit Win fits in a nutshell. Also it runs happily on a '386 or '486 and requires little RAM.

Why would anyone want it? (a different poster asked) It supports my copy of Microchip's MPLab, which is what I use for PIC development. Used to use Win 3.1 for email too, but in Dec 2004 Juno cut off dial-up service for their free product and I dropped Juno.

I am *not* saying 16-bit is for everyone; I am saying that 16-bit adequately fills one specific need of mine.

--
Michael

Well, exiting is *almost* that fast. If I just knew how to get around the maddening, I'm-watching-out-for-you window that asks (something like) "Do you really want to exit" ....

--
Michael

Why let that stop you? I used Access4Less before they were acquired by EarthLink. $9.95/month for dialup.

You have Netscape Navigator Gold or equivalent, right? That's what I used a decade ago, when I was in school. Win 3.11 on a 486DX4 was fast. Faster than the bloatware on today's machines...

For sure!

Michael D.

I still have a PC with a similar installation in fact. The 486DX4 was upgraded to an AM586-133 in fact.

Unfortunately the connections were slow back then !

Graham

Certainly not in the US.

In the US, for works of corporate authorship, it's now 95 years from publication. Windows 3.1 will enter the public domain on 1-JAN-2088, if Congress hasn't extended the term again by then.

I have a Fortran compiler that runs under Win3.x, and it can compile

16-bit or 32-bit applications for DOS or any of the Windows OSes up to and including XP. It is a lot more flexible than an upgrade version that runs in Win98 thru WinXP.

If i remember correctly, F then X.

Correct. But you'd better have one key for each PC.

Some years ago, I worked for an outfit that purchased a few dozen engineering workstations. Each came with a set of documentation, media and a license certificate. Management directed the IT folks to install the software, save a couple of sets of media and documentation and toss everything else in the garbage. As I was walking by the tub skids (used for refuse), I spotted a bunch of the license certificates sticking out of the garbage. I retrieved what I saw, handed them to the group manager and told him that it would probably be a good idea if the IT folks would at least save the certificates before tossing out the duplicate documentation. He just said, "Yeah, whatever."

These people build airplanes (shudder).

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world,
those who understand binary and those who don\'t.

The last extension was promoted by the Disney Company, to keep their earliest works out of the public domain. Hence the name the Mickey Mouse copyright extension. In 2088, when Microsoft lobbies for another extension, it will be called ...... the Mickey Mouse copyright extension.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
If the first attempt at making a drawing board had been a failure,
what would they go back to?

...or when somebody makes a stink, do this: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:eDJiCiySTEAJ:getopenoffice.org/ernieball.html+Ernie-Ball-*+Linux+Nail-*-*+Business-Software-Alliance+$65000+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-treats-us-poorly+$35000+evening-news

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:eDJiCiySTEAJ:getopenoffice.org/ernieball.html+Ernie-Ball-*+Linux+Nail-*-*+Business-Software-Alliance+$65000+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-treats-us-poorly+$35000+evening-news

My goodness! Those Business Software Alliance guys really do that kind of stuff? I read an article about something similar in linuxjournal.com, but I thought it was exaggerated. (And of course, what side would you expect linuxjournal.com to take...?)

Thanks...

Michael D.

garbage.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:eDJiCiySTEAJ:getopenoffice.org/ernieball.html+Ernie-Ball-*+Linux+Nail-*-*+Business-Software-Alliance+$65000+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-treats-us-poorly+$35000+evening-news

To pre-emptively defend against this, the company where I used to work hired an outside consultant to come in and survey everyone's computer, deleting any BSA applications that had no licenses avaiable. At the time, we were shipping hundreds of ruggedized PCs to the US Army every week, so we had Windows and DOS by the pallet in the warehouse.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:eDJiCiySTEAJ:getopenoffice.org/ernieball.html+Ernie-Ball-*+Linux+Nail-*-*+Business-Software-Alliance+$65000+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-treats-us-poorly+$35000+evening-news

His mistake was getting "raided." Our University computer security team (which I was leading at the time) decided in the 1990s that we don't allow "raids." If people show up to check software licenses, we send our lawyers, and if necessary our police, to negotiate with them. After all, we have no idea whether they are really who they say they are. And even if they're telling the truth, we have certain constitutional rights...

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:eDJiCiySTEAJ:getopenoffice.org/ernieball.html+Ernie-Ball-*+Linux+Nail-*-*+Business-Software-Alliance+$65000+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-treats-us-poorly+$35000+evening-news

I should add that we have a commitment to abide by software licenses. But if a licensor thinks we're in violation, they're not allowed to "raid" us. Instead they are sent to our internal auditing division, which, in turn, will check whatever needs checking.

[snip]

If that's what your license says. Otherwise, if you clicked "I agree" and the fine print says the BSA goon squad may visit at their pleasure, then stopping them at the door is in and of itself a license violation.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don\'t get even -- get odd! :¬þ

Does the fine print actually say that? I don't recall seeing any that does. Anyhow, if you think the fine print is always enforceable, you need a better lawyer :)

People who write software licenses *do* think the fine print is always enforceable. Many software licenses contain things a lawyer or judge would laugh at. Programmers don't know how to do law... Laws and contracts do not operate like computer programs, inexorably doing what they say they're going to do. There is a large amount of written precedent and unwritten common law that binds them.

We still use Win3.11 on modern mobile industrial PCs here at work because: a) the test software and GPIB drivers etc are all geared around that and it continues to work just fine.

b) Win 3.11 boots in about 1 second (no kidding) on a modern class machine, that saves serious production time when the machine is moved around the floor and plugged/unplugged a few dozen times a day.

and c) When the operators just pull the plug (you can't train them to shut it down properly, they just won't do it) it doesn't corrupt the hard drive or go through a lengthy recovery like the modern O/S's do.

Getting hard to find video chipsets that have Win3.11 drivers though!

Dave :)

Sorry, but that doesn't "beg the question". It "_RAISES_ the question," or "CALLS FOR the question", but "beg the question" is an entirely different matter - it means to revert to your original premise, as proof of itself, IOW, a circular argument.

Thanks, Rich Grise, Self-Appointed Chief, Apostrophe and Grammar Police

Don't confuse consumer law with commercial law. As an individual, you might be able to squirm out from under the terms of a popup license. As a business, that's much less likely.

As to programmers knowledge of law, I've worked on projects where the legal staff was larger then the engineering staff. Small software businesses might not have the resources to write airtight licenses, but you can rest assured that Microsoft does.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust the computer industry to shorten the term "Year 2000" to Y2K.
It was this kind of thinking that got us in trouble in the first place.
        -- Adrian Tyvand