| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 35 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 29:38:22 |
| Calls: | 333 |
| Files: | 990 |
| Messages: | 84,638 |
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:28:38 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:51:10 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
So, play Solitaire, Minesweeper, etc. ;)
Not with the above-mentioned driver, though. Apparently, with the
current version of the driver, Solitaire.exe crashes ;-)
But WinDoom runs fine though, and that's what counts.
That's funny that runs but not WIndows 3's included own games.
I remember being impresed by WinDOOM with its more audio channels!
I remember just being impressed that "Doom" ran in Windows at all!
Windows 3.x up to that point was so abjectly bad at games up to that
point; the platform was seen as 'okay' for slow-moving games like >"Civilization" or "Myst" but for anything where the screen updated
quickly, DOS was seen as the superior option. The WinG API --which can
be seen as a sort of prototype "DirectX" for Windows3.x-- was a
revelation in how it finally allowed action games on the platform. All
of a sudden games like "Pitfall: Mayan Adventure", "Earthsiege 2" and
"Fury" became possible.
It still wasn't a good idea, because the Win3 stack was so top-heavy
and demanded more resources from a game than you'd get if you stuck
with DOS, but it paved the way for the Windows95 revolution. For all
its other problems, Windows did offer a lot of benefits to developers,
such as not having to write their own memory management, or
sound/video-card drivers. Windows95 that took off with the concept,
but it was Windows 3/WinG that paved the way.
If there's one thing I actually liked about Windows 3.x, it was how
easy it was to completely customize the user interface. To some degree
this has persisted even up through Windows 11, but with Win3.x it was >possible to change pretty much everything about the shell, and do it
very easily.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:28:38 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:51:10 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
So, play Solitaire, Minesweeper, etc. ;)
Not with the above-mentioned driver, though. Apparently, with the
current version of the driver, Solitaire.exe crashes ;-)
But WinDoom runs fine though, and that's what counts.
That's funny that runs but not WIndows 3's included own games.
I remember being impresed by WinDOOM with its more audio channels!
I remember just being impressed that "Doom" ran in Windows at all!
Windows 3.x up to that point was so abjectly bad at games up to that
point; the platform was seen as 'okay' for slow-moving games like >"Civilization" or "Myst" but for anything where the screen updated
quickly, DOS was seen as the superior option. The WinG API --which can
be seen as a sort of prototype "DirectX" for Windows3.x-- was a
revelation in how it finally allowed action games on the platform. All
of a sudden games like "Pitfall: Mayan Adventure", "Earthsiege 2" and
"Fury" became possible.
It still wasn't a good idea, because the Win3 stack was so top-heavy
and demanded more resources from a game than you'd get if you stuck
with DOS, but it paved the way for the Windows95 revolution. For all
its other problems, Windows did offer a lot of benefits to developers,
such as not having to write their own memory management, or
sound/video-card drivers. Windows95 that took off with the concept,
but it was Windows 3/WinG that paved the way.
If there's one thing I actually liked about Windows 3.x, it was how
easy it was to completely customize the user interface. To some degree
this has persisted even up through Windows 11, but with Win3.x it was >possible to change pretty much everything about the shell, and do it
very easily.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:51:10 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
(Get it here: : https://github.com/PluMGMK/vbesvga.drv !)
Now you can play games on Windows 3.1 at 1920x1080 with millions of
colors, just like you always wanted to! And no, you won't need some
ancient ISA video-card to do it; it will work on (most) modern GPUs!
Isn't it exciting? ;-)
So, play Solitaire, Minesweeper, etc. ;)
Not with the above-mentioned driver, though. Apparently, with the
current version of the driver, Solitaire.exe crashes ;-)
(Hey, it's still a work in progress!)
But WinDoom runs fine though, and that's what counts.
That's funny that runs but not WIndows 3's included own games. I remember being impresed by WinDOOM with its more audio channels!
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:28:38 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:51:10 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
So, play Solitaire, Minesweeper, etc. ;)
Not with the above-mentioned driver, though. Apparently, with the
current version of the driver, Solitaire.exe crashes ;-)
But WinDoom runs fine though, and that's what counts.
That's funny that runs but not WIndows 3's included own games.
I remember being impresed by WinDOOM with its more audio channels!
I remember just being impressed that "Doom" ran in Windows at all!
Windows 3.x up to that point was so abjectly bad at games up to that
point; the platform was seen as 'okay' for slow-moving games like "Civilization" or "Myst" but for anything where the screen updated
quickly, DOS was seen as the superior option. The WinG API --which can
be seen as a sort of prototype "DirectX" for Windows3.x-- was a
revelation in how it finally allowed action games on the platform. All
of a sudden games like "Pitfall: Mayan Adventure", "Earthsiege 2" and
"Fury" became possible.
It still wasn't a good idea, because the Win3 stack was so top-heavy
and demanded more resources from a game than you'd get if you stuck
with DOS, but it paved the way for the Windows95 revolution. For all
its other problems, Windows did offer a lot of benefits to developers,
such as not having to write their own memory management, or
sound/video-card drivers. Windows95 that took off with the concept,
but it was Windows 3/WinG that paved the way.
If there's one thing I actually liked about Windows 3.x, it was how
easy it was to completely customize the user interface. To some degree
this has persisted even up through Windows 11, but with Win3.x it was possible to change pretty much everything about the shell, and do it
very easily.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 19:50:03 -0000 (UTC), in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, candycanearter07 wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:21 this Sunday (GMT):
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 04:20:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 >>><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:30 this Saturday (GMT):
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:28:38 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:51:10 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
If there's one thing I actually liked about Windows 3.x, it was how
easy it was to completely customize the user interface. To some degree >>>>> this has persisted even up through Windows 11, but with Win3.x it was >>>>> possible to change pretty much everything about the shell, and do it >>>>> very easily.
I hate how little you can really change in newer Windows releases..
I honestly don't know if you can change less in modern windows than
you could in Win3. But it was much /easier/ to make those changes
'back in the day'. Just drop an EXE in the right place, change a
single line in system.ini and you're good to go.
Modern Windows require a lot more work to do the same thing, and
becaue the system has become a lot more complex and integrated, the
end result often feels very patchwork because a change in one area
isn't reflected elsewhere. Microsoft /themselves/ have been fighting
this battle for over a decade, and are still trying to revamp some
dark corners of Windows that use legacy interfaces (and, given how low
effort and information-sparse their replacements are, may they long
fight this war!). But it just goes to show how much effort is actually
required.
Win3's shell-replacement was practically drop-in and run. That had its
own problems (from a security perspective, it's terrifying!) but it
was also really neat.
I suppose, I may just also be cynical because I am someone who enjoys >>messing with stuff.
If you want to mess with Win10/11, the place to go is Stardock.
Otherwise, all you get is applying one color to the taskbars and
application headers, and messing with Start.
Start is semi-functional on Win 11, since you can't use a jumplist on any
app pinned to it, so it makes more sense to pin to the taskbar.
You are correct. It was hard enough to customize Win XP. Since Vista, MS
has really locked down the UI.
HOT DOG STAND.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 04:20:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:30 this Saturday (GMT):
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:28:38 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:51:10 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
If there's one thing I actually liked about Windows 3.x, it was how
easy it was to completely customize the user interface. To some degree
this has persisted even up through Windows 11, but with Win3.x it was
possible to change pretty much everything about the shell, and do it
very easily.
I hate how little you can really change in newer Windows releases..
I honestly don't know if you can change less in modern windows than
you could in Win3. But it was much /easier/ to make those changes
'back in the day'. Just drop an EXE in the right place, change a
single line in system.ini and you're good to go.
Modern Windows require a lot more work to do the same thing, and
becaue the system has become a lot more complex and integrated, the
end result often feels very patchwork because a change in one area
isn't reflected elsewhere. Microsoft /themselves/ have been fighting
this battle for over a decade, and are still trying to revamp some
dark corners of Windows that use legacy interfaces (and, given how low
effort and information-sparse their replacements are, may they long
fight this war!). But it just goes to show how much effort is actually required.
Win3's shell-replacement was practically drop-in and run. That had its
own problems (from a security perspective, it's terrifying!) but it
was also really neat.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:21 this Sunday (GMT): >> On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 04:20:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 >><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:30 this Saturday (GMT):
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:28:38 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:51:10 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
If there's one thing I actually liked about Windows 3.x, it was how
easy it was to completely customize the user interface. To some degree >>>> this has persisted even up through Windows 11, but with Win3.x it was
possible to change pretty much everything about the shell, and do it
very easily.
I hate how little you can really change in newer Windows releases..
I honestly don't know if you can change less in modern windows than
you could in Win3. But it was much /easier/ to make those changes
'back in the day'. Just drop an EXE in the right place, change a
single line in system.ini and you're good to go.
Modern Windows require a lot more work to do the same thing, and
becaue the system has become a lot more complex and integrated, the
end result often feels very patchwork because a change in one area
isn't reflected elsewhere. Microsoft /themselves/ have been fighting
this battle for over a decade, and are still trying to revamp some
dark corners of Windows that use legacy interfaces (and, given how low
effort and information-sparse their replacements are, may they long
fight this war!). But it just goes to show how much effort is actually
required.
Win3's shell-replacement was practically drop-in and run. That had its
own problems (from a security perspective, it's terrifying!) but it
was also really neat.
I suppose, I may just also be cynical because I am someone who enjoys
messing with stuff.
Windows 3? That clunky operating-system-cum-system-shell from 1990?
Yup. It's back... and now with support for HD resolutions! Because we
all know that's what's been holding back that "OS", right? The lack of >high-resolutions. Well, no longer; there's a new open-source SVGA
driver that will run on Windows 3.1 and allow ultra-high resolution
and color depths!
(Get it here: : https://github.com/PluMGMK/vbesvga.drv !)
Windows 3? That clunky operating-system-cum-system-shell from 1990?
Yup. It's back... and now with support for HD resolutions! Because we
all know that's what's been holding back that "OS", right? The lack of >high-resolutions. Well, no longer; there's a new open-source SVGA
driver that will run on Windows 3.1 and allow ultra-high resolution
and color depths!
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 12:46:47 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Windows 3? That clunky operating-system-cum-system-shell from 1990?
Yup. It's back... and now with support for HD resolutions! Because we
all know that's what's been holding back that "OS", right? The lack of >>high-resolutions. Well, no longer; there's a new open-source SVGA
driver that will run on Windows 3.1 and allow ultra-high resolution
and color depths!
I have Win 3.1 running in DosBox. I just booted it up now to make sure
it still works which it does. I don't use it anymore though. I agree
with you, I don't miss it.
And I just love how there's a tiny group of dedicated geeks still
working on keeping this ancient platform alive.
Maybe it's just me.
Windows 3? That clunky operating-system-cum-system-shell from 1990?
Yup. It's back... and now with support for HD resolutions! Because we
all know that's what's been holding back that "OS", right? The lack of high-resolutions. Well, no longer; there's a new open-source SVGA
driver that will run on Windows 3.1 and allow ultra-high resolution
and color depths!
(Get it here: : https://github.com/PluMGMK/vbesvga.drv !)
Now you can play games on Windows 3.1 at 1920x1080 with millions of
colors, just like you always wanted to! And no, you won't need some
ancient ISA video-card to do it; it will work on (most) modern GPUs!
Isn't it exciting? ;-)
Well, no, of course it's not; not really. Windows 3.1 was a PITA even
back in 1992; it was an extremely fragile layer on top of an extremely
clunky OS, and it was a really poor platform for gaming. Nobody misses
it (sorry to be cruel, Windows 3.1, but it's true). Its lack of higher resolution support was the least of its issues. But there's something undefinably neat and intriguing about running such an obsolete system
with wide-screen support. (here's a video showing it off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbXkvM3b2Qg). I must admit I'm halfway tempted to spin up one of my older PCs and install Windows 3.1 on it
just to see how well it would run, just because it does seem such an obscenity against natur^h^h^h^h^h technology. And I just love how
there's a tiny group of dedicated geeks still working on keeping this
ancient platform alive.
Maybe it's just me.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:51:10 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
(Get it here: : https://github.com/PluMGMK/vbesvga.drv !)
Now you can play games on Windows 3.1 at 1920x1080 with millions of
colors, just like you always wanted to! And no, you won't need some
ancient ISA video-card to do it; it will work on (most) modern GPUs!
Isn't it exciting? ;-)
So, play Solitaire, Minesweeper, etc. ;)
Not with the above-mentioned driver, though. Apparently, with the
current version of the driver, Solitaire.exe crashes ;-)
(Hey, it's still a work in progress!)
But WinDoom runs fine though, and that's what counts.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:51:10 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
(Get it here: : https://github.com/PluMGMK/vbesvga.drv !)
Now you can play games on Windows 3.1 at 1920x1080 with millions of
colors, just like you always wanted to! And no, you won't need some
ancient ISA video-card to do it; it will work on (most) modern GPUs!
Isn't it exciting? ;-)
So, play Solitaire, Minesweeper, etc. ;)
Not with the above-mentioned driver, though. Apparently, with the
current version of the driver, Solitaire.exe crashes ;-)
(Hey, it's still a work in progress!)
But WinDoom runs fine though, and that's what counts.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 15:14 this Friday (GMT):
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:51:10 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
(Get it here: : https://github.com/PluMGMK/vbesvga.drv !)
Now you can play games on Windows 3.1 at 1920x1080 with millions of
colors, just like you always wanted to! And no, you won't need some
ancient ISA video-card to do it; it will work on (most) modern GPUs!
Isn't it exciting? ;-)
So, play Solitaire, Minesweeper, etc. ;)
Not with the above-mentioned driver, though. Apparently, with the
current version of the driver, Solitaire.exe crashes ;-)
(Hey, it's still a work in progress!)
But WinDoom runs fine though, and that's what counts.
I thought minesweeper was the one that exploded!
