OSDev.org

However, when I drive my car, I am not interested in what is under the hood. I just want it to be fast, safe and reliable.

So I take it you are driving a Model T? It does the same job as any modern car, just not so sophisticated. Much like the difference between Windows 3 and Windows 8 - or indeed any operating system. They all do the same basic thing; it's just that the modern ones are fast, safe, and reliable.

What do you want Windows to do?

Well, that is exactly what I am questioning. Internet, audio and video are faster and more reliable, I reckon that. Applications I need for everyday work and household are not.

This is basically a rant about bloat. Windows Vista and my Office 2007 applications are hardly faster, safer or more reliable, even when running on an Intel Centrino vPro, than Windows 3 and Office 4 running on an 80486.

I get it. You are ranting about application software, not the operating system. I was concerned with the operating system.

But, to digress to your sub-thread, the main applications that I use day-to-day are text editors (not word processors), language compilers, pdf viewers, email, and web browsing. If you honestly think that none of these have improved since the days of Windows 3.11 - let alone Windows 3 - then I suggest you return to that OS and leave the rest of us to enjoy fast, reliable operating systems that get the job done in a fraction of the time that Windows 3 took - and I get none of those GPF error messages that were such a regular feature.

They say that nostalgia is blind. Try living the past for a month.

Hobbes wrote:The Windows GUI and my office applications are hardly faster, safer or more reliable

It depends on how you look at it. When you didn't have the internet, threats were more limited and contained, which allowed for simpler validation of your .doc files (you also had less storage and CPU cycles for all the checks) and the OS was also easy on validation. That is not to say everything was perfect. You did carry around floppies and occasionally did catch viruses, sure. But if you used those old versions of Windows and Word with specially crafted .doc files of today (supposing, the format remained compatible), you would've seen how much less secure and reliable Windows 3 and Word 6 are compared to Windows 7 and Word 2010+. But Word 2010 isn't missing the checks that Word 6 was. You see, threats evolve with technology and with its accessibility. If you disconnect your computer from the rest of the world (better yet, from the power outlet as well:), you can probably still use Word 6 or even EDIT.COM and not care about viruses, trojans, etc etc, and feel secure, and reasonably so.

Also they fuzz the hell out of .doc files (and other formats) and Word (and other apps) and do it quite intelligently. They aren't just sitting around and waiting for hackers to do it. The read-only mode in Word is another counter measure for attacks with maliciously crafted documents.

I don't know if it makes you feel more secure/safer or not, but you shouldn't be making statements like that, unless you explicitly clarify that that's what you think, that's what you have no evidence for, and thus you may be making a mistake.

Bloat is now everywhere. If not everywhere, it's coming to <s>theaters</s> locations near you. Don't shame MS Windows/Office. Look around. See gigahertz and gigabytes in cellphones from other companies? See many buttons and CPUs/microcomputers in cars?

Well, I never had a BSOD on Windows 3, but I must admit I did not have an Internet connection either.

However, I think "bloat is everywhere" is not a satisfying answer. What use is it to make processors faster and memory larger, if software gets slower and more demanding?

Windows 3 should run like a Formula 1 race car on real hardware. Maybe I should try it

Hobbes wrote:Well, I never had a BSOD on Windows 3, but I must admit I did not have an Internet connection either.

Possibly that's because BSODs didn't exist in Windows 3. You got an error dialog, usually a very unspecific GPF or "insufficient memory".

I'm beginning to doubt your recollection of what Windows 3 was really like. If you don't remember it crashing then you have a very selective memory. As you say, maybe you should try it.

iansjack wrote:

Hobbes wrote:Well, I never had a BSOD on Windows 3, but I must admit I did not have an Internet connection either.

Possibly that's because BSODs didn't exist in Windows 3. You got an error dialog, usually a very unspecific GPF or "insufficient memory".

I'm beginning to doubt your recollection of what Windows 3 was really like. If you don't remember it crashing then you have a very selective memory. As you say, maybe you should try it.

Or never really used it. I had quite a lot of crashes of Windows 3. Fewer in Windows 95 and 98. Many many fewer in XP an 7. Quite a progress.

My memory may be selective but I am positive that Windows 3 did have a BSOD.Fun fact: I tried to post this in IE5 on Windows 3 running in Virtual PC. Didn't work.

Hobbes wrote:However, I think "bloat is everywhere" is not a satisfying answer. What use is it to make processors faster and memory larger, if software gets slower and more demanding?

That's more of the effect than of the cause. One cause is that with today's hardware and software it's often permissible to include a huge library (or a whole dedicated microprocessor) to solve a small problem. Another cause is that people want the result fast and they often get it fast in exactly this way. Good enough and implemented fast is what very often matters (business-wise or to avoid boredom). There's also this fundamental problem of software complexity vs its apparent complexity vs what programmers can do to manage it and to cope with it. It's very easy to create a software monster (hey, it's composable bottom-up, top-down, left and right!), but it's very hard to make it function, to maintain it and to develop it further. That's what I have for a better answer. Suggest improvements.

alexfru wrote:Bloat is now everywhere.

Bloat is an old problem. It seems Bill Gates got into hot water as his code was unnecessarily big. According to the man himself it's an accurate story, but that comment could have been written by anyone.

It's probably more acceptable now. As you said, we've got more memory and more MIPS. When things were worse resource wise, you had to be crafty. The Atari 2600 game Yar's Revenge was so tight on memory, it used the game's machine code as graphics data to drawing the random/fuzzy neutral zone (http://www.giantbomb.com/yars-revenge/3030-14821/). Now that's creative in my book.

Fun fact: I tried to post this in IE5 on Windows 3 running in Virtual PC. Didn't work.

It wouldn't. The BSOD was introduced with Windows 3.1. I suspect you are running 3.11, not 3, if you have networking.

The fact that you were unable to post using it proves my point I think. You can't use Windows 3.anything for day-to-day tasks nowadays.

It's probably more acceptable now. As you said, we've got more memory and more MIPS.

We also have operating systems and programs that are more inclusive. In the days of Windows 3.x very few drivers were included with the system and niceties such as TCP/IP networking, email, web browsers, ... were add-ons, not built in to the OS (as were a host of tools that we now take for granted). And you had word processors, DTP software, illustrating software, PDF creation software, etc. whereas nowadays the one program does it all.

I'd guess that nowadays, despite the so-called bloat, I have a higher percentage of free disk space and more free RAM than I ever did in the old days. Anyone remember having to mess about with memory extenders and other arcane methods of getting enough RAM to just run some programs?

Windows 3 should run like a Formula 1 race car on real hardware.

Are you sure? Windows 3.0 wouldn't make use of the extensions and features in newer processors or will it?
Even under the most premium situations:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.0 wrote:386 Enhanced mode was a 32-bit virtual machine that ran a copy of 16-bit Standard mode, and multiple copies of MS-DOS in virtual 8086 mode.

I do wonder what will happen if Windows 3 was edited to make use of the newer extensions and features.

That's easy. Eventually you would end up with Windows 8.1.