[HN Gopher] Slimming Down Windows 3.1/3.11 (2002)
___________________________________________________________________
Slimming Down Windows 3.1/3.11 (2002)
Author : userbinator
Score : 131 points
Date : 2024-02-24 07:04 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.geocities.ws)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.geocities.ws)
| cable2600 wrote:
| I remember using Double Space to compress a 1.44M floppy to run
| Windows 3.1 on it. I forgot how I did it, nice to see this
| website document it.
|
| Companies still use Windows 3.X because of old software written
| for it that they don't have the source code for it anymore.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Companies still use Windows 3.X because of old software
| written for it that they don't have the source code for it
| anymore.
|
| Yup, a particularly funny case was just recently the German
| Railways and/or their vendor Siemens...
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39286206
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| double space was nice unless you had anything that's been
| already compressed. I hated when it showed me 450MB of disk
| space (I had 160MB HDD), but then after installing Warcraft 2
| it took 160 of my free space instead of 50MB (don't remember
| real figures, however war2 had already compressed files and it
| was shown in Norton Commander as "size: (let's say) 50MB,
| occupied: 160MB"
| M95D wrote:
| Remaining disk space was _estimated_ using a compression
| ratio of 2.0 by default, but you could change the default, at
| least in Win9x. I don 't know why it showed you 450MB on a
| 160MB HDD. You probably already changed it to 3.0 or higher.
|
| I used a drivespace volume for a very very very long time,
| even when I had 80 GB HDDs, because it made it SO EASY to
| back up the entire windows installation - just copy the file.
| chungy wrote:
| DriveSpace was only ever available on FAT12 and FAT16
| volumes. It seems like it'd be more annoying than anything
| for drives where FAT32 would be desirable.
| M95D wrote:
| Not really. I had (and still have and use today) a 2GB
| FAT16 partition with ~1 GB for DOS utilities, Win98 setup
| kit from the CD and various windows programs that didn't
| need to be installed. The remaining ~1 GB was the
| drivespace volume with 2 GB space inside (maximum) for
| Windows 98 and the rest of programs that needed to be
| installed to run. It was enough space for Office 97,
| Corel Draw 8, Adobe Acrobat 5, and many many small
| programs. Games are in a different partition.
| cesarb wrote:
| I vaguely recall that the default was to use the current
| average compression for the default estimation. I always
| changed it to 1, which is much saner: instead of being
| surprised that you didn't have enough disk space to store
| something, you'd at most get surprised that you had more
| space left over than you expected after storing something.
| Even today, things like the transparent compression in
| btrfs use 1 as the compression ratio for the free space
| estimate (though its metadata usage can be a bit
| unpredictable).
| badgersnake wrote:
| It got renamed to Drivespace in 6.2 didn't it? Presumably
| because 'double' was a bit optimistic.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Because of a lawsuit,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics
|
| DriverSpace was the new version after the lawsuit was
| settled.
| baal80spam wrote:
| > I don't know if Doublespace will work on a 286 computer
|
| I know for a fact that it WILL work :)
| M95D wrote:
| Badly. Because (1) CPU and (2) dblspace.bin takes ~70K of
| conventional memory. IIRC, on a 286 it can't be loaded high, or
| at least not with EMM386 from back then.
| baal80spam wrote:
| True, but if you just want that extra space it does its job.
| It made my 40MB hard drive store ~70MB of data which was a
| godsend back in the day!
| fsiefken wrote:
| Appearently QEMM QRAM can do it on 286
| https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=71533
| Sesse__ wrote:
| I ran DriveSpace on an 8088. For several years. Was too young
| to notice the slowness, I guess.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Meanwhile in 2024: npm i
| edward28 wrote:
| Slimming down windows 11. Step 1: you don't.
| accrual wrote:
| There is Tiny11 for those wanting to try a custom stripped
| down version of Windows 11. Never tried it myself, though I
| was a fan of nLite back in the day.
|
| [0] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tiny11-23h2-windows-
| releas...
| RedShift1 wrote:
| Tiny... The installer is 4.5 GB :')
| gpvos wrote:
| A swap file on a RAM disk seems... not useful.
| M95D wrote:
| Depends on the system. I still use a ramdisk on my
| DOS/Win31/Win98 machine. It has lots of memory and Win98
| crashes with more than ~768 MB RAM. I use the ramdisk to occupy
| excess memory.
| accrual wrote:
| What do you use the ramdisk for? That sounds pretty
| interesting.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Back in the dark ages I put swap on most of the graphics memory
| of an AGP bus graphics card. The read spead was slow compared
| to system RAM but insanely fast compared to swapping to HDD.
| Then put the graphics card as the highest priority swap so it
| swapped there before going to HDD.
| Vogtinator wrote:
| Can be, if the RAM disk is compressed.
| foresto wrote:
| You might find these interesting:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zswap
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zram
| grishka wrote:
| If your RAM disk has a fixed size but there's some free space
| on it, and the system is out of RAM, it can effectively reclaim
| that otherwise unused space on the RAM disk at the cost of
| having to copy the pages back and forth.
| 123pie123 wrote:
| from my vague memory, windows had a default minimum swap size.
| by putting it on to a RAM drive if you had enough memory (+ and
| as someone else mentioned compressing it as well) made things
| run much faster
| sim- wrote:
| Android does this with zram, and I think this is a big part of
| the reason why it tends to use more battery once you run low on
| RAM, since paging in and out requires (de)compression, which
| uses CPU.
| compsciphd wrote:
| around the same time, I fit linux with many of the common
| ethernet drivers, X + rdesktop and vnc clients + a little utility
| to launch them to a list of sites on a single floppy.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| Seems like the sort of page that should've been linked from
| oldfiles.org, a long lost directory/webring of DOS, bootdisk
| stuffing and Windows 3.x sites:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20090120233733/http://oldfiles.o...
|
| The site is now gone, but at least it isn't a SEO spamming blog.
| fsiefken wrote:
| Two floppies? In 1995 I got Windows 3.1 down to 1 floppy in order
| to boot a library catalogue computer into a Write.exe so I could
| do wysiwyg word processing. All the Wordperfect 5.1 machines were
| used and as few used a catalogue computer only for a short while
| I thought I should just do it - I used the software "2MF 3.0"
| which formatted the 1.44 to the highest density of 2M, booted
| into DOS, with autoexec.bat a ramdisk was created and the WIN.UC2
| self-extracted itself. Decades later I am happy to work at the
| same university in IT. I made a similar floppy setup to boot into
| CIV1 and a floppy to read the complete bible, and a floppy to
| listen to mod's. One floppy for single tasking computing, life
| was good.
| kungreke wrote:
| I love this idea. I wish there was some kind of 2024 equivalent
| to doing this. Maybe a rewritable optical media of some sort.
| Sony really should have brought the minidisc to the pc as a
| floppy and cd/dvd rom replacement.
| ville wrote:
| USB sticks should work for this purpose. Rewritable, smaller
| and faster than optical media.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Started doing this when the first USB sticks became
| available. Even in Windows 95, which didn't support USB at
| the time.
|
| Interestingly W95 could be trimmed down to about 35mb, and
| carefully adding Word & Excel from Office97 was about
| another 65mb, so it ended up fitting if you had one of the
| huge 128mb USB sticks.
|
| That's about the smallest I can figure you can get a 32-bit
| Windows office machine which would be "fully compatible"
| with the latest Windows & Office versions, as long as you
| were carefully storing your office files on a FAT32
| partition and limiting your expectations (like file size
| and number of XL rows) to those addressed by W95 which was
| as functional an office machine as millions of people need
| today.
|
| For those of you who did manage to run W95 at its full 2GHz
| maximum over 10 years later on much higher speed
| motherboards than there were in the 1990's, you know what
| I'm talking about when I say the most noticeable thing is
| _zero_ latency in almost all human-computer interactions.
|
| You could be doing all kinds of office work, with lots of
| other things to "boot".
|
| Just got a couple more of the "small" 128GB SATA SSD that
| are finally cheap enough for bootable OS's to use like
| "game cartridges" now. Not much different "application",
| just faster booting and operation than most USB.
|
| Two partitions on each SSD, one for an OS only, one for ALL
| related storage.
|
| Still have some massive multibooting going on, but with
| these lttle SSDs the most up-to-date are going to be W11,
| W10x86, W10x64, Debian, Mint & Fedora.
|
| Fortunately I got a few of the pre-NUC cheap ASUS miniPC
| that has a simple hatch on top and came with a full size
| SATA Desktop HDD right there. Gets even better ventilation
| and has no exposed electronics when the cover is off all
| the time, remove the HDD (for good now) and just slip in
| whichever SSD you feel like booting to at the time.
|
| Looks like about 128GB will do what 128mb would do back in
| the day.
| userbinator wrote:
| _Even in Windows 95, which didn 't support USB at the
| time._
|
| That's because DOS-based Windows could use the BIOS for
| disk access, and BIOS presented USB drives as hard
| drives. I believe you can even do the same with an NVMe
| SSD that has a suitable boot ROM.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Yes, good to emphasize that UEFI or genuine BIOS
| motherboards will access the USB drives on powerup, then
| any OS that can boot from that type partition layout can
| go forward from there. DOS, W9x, NT5 need CSM enabled to
| boot on a UEFI MB, W7 loves it as well.
|
| W98 would install and run from USB too, as long as USB
| device drivers did not get installed. That way once
| booted if you plugged something into a USB socket on the
| MB, it was "unknown" and remained inaccessible. But if
| you booted when the second USB device was plugged in
| beforehand, W9x (or DOS) assigned an alphabetic drive
| letter and you could access the files.
|
| Sometimes I still use a small FAT32 partition with simple
| DOS on a Syslinux'ed volume to boot distros from the NT5
| bootloader. That way you can edit the Linux multiboot
| menu in Windows, or even DOS which sure boots a lot
| faster today.
|
| Now they have USB enclosures for M.2 drives, usually not
| both NVMe & SATA flexibility though.
| ljf wrote:
| Mike Elgan of therawfeed (a long defunct tech website), used
| to talk about his minimal travel set up - of a USB with a
| basic linux distro on it and a very simple word processing
| set up.
|
| He'd either boot to it to 'hobble' his own laptop and remove
| all other distractions while writing, or boot to it from
| other peoples PCs to a set up he was used to and happy to
| work from when away from home. (Mike was one of the first
| technomads - or at least one of the first to post about it a
| lot.)
|
| I had a similar set up for a while which I used with my home
| laptop or work PC at lunch time, but I never really got into
| writing as much as I'd hoped I would, so it wasn't that
| useful for me.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| > I wish there was some kind of 2024 equivalent to doing this
|
| Lots of OS support live USB images. It's only Windows and
| macOS that don't (though I'm sure Windows could with a little
| effort).
|
| > Sony really should have brought the minidisc to the pc as a
| floppy and cd/dvd rom replacement.
|
| Sony did. But there were already removable writable formats
| that had larger capacity than a CD back when the minidisk was
| a thing and they didn't become mainstream either.
|
| Frankly I think MiniDisk is one of those technologies that
| people remember as being better than they actually were.
| codetrotter wrote:
| I remember in the WinXP era there existed a tool called
| BartPE that you could use to make WinXP bootable live CDs.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BartPE
| godzillabrennus wrote:
| Who can also forget the venerable "nlite" for
| slipstreaming updates, drivers, third party software, and
| minimizing the foot print of Windows XP.
|
| https://www.nliteos.com/index.html
| accrual wrote:
| I credit nLite for my general NT knowledge today. Taking
| Windows apart and putting it back together was a fun way
| to squeeze every MHz/Mb from your hardware.
| fsiefken wrote:
| I recently found a 90 minute cassette from 40 years ago
| with some good obscure music I had forgotten. The
| accessibility and touch of the cassette and a floppy
| interfacing with the player or controller gives a better
| tactile feedback then a USB disk or MicroUSB disk. You can
| more easily loose the USB disks as well as they are smaller
| and don't really make noise when dropped.
|
| As MiniDisc and Zipdrive are obsolete I'd like to have a
| minicd or businesscard CD audioplayer based on a
| RaspberryPi Zero. With using Vocos, EnCodec or Lyra v2 you
| could fit 200 hours of stereo audio on the small cd at
| around 3 kbps and select them with some buttons and a LCD
| screen. Similar to the Imation RipGo or Memorex portable
| 8cm mini-cd players which could play mp3.
| https://languagecodec.github.io/
|
| Alternatively I could use cassette or microcassette.
| https://hackaday.com/2021/10/20/audio-tape-interface-
| revives... https://blog.adafruit.com/2023/10/17/a-wind-up-
| cassette-play...
|
| I could run a bootable OS on MicroSD and using external
| small cd's as data or app storage, perhaps also to boot
| from. An OS experience [Redox, Haiku, KolibriOS, Dragonfly,
| Fuchsia, MorphOS, Serenity] booting from a 8 cm business
| card CD depending on the day, weather or mood.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_CD
|
| Or perhaps just boot into a Raspberry Pi zero menu to
| select or boot a random OS from the Zero and use Airtagged
| encrypted USB-C sticks (making sure each OS can read the
| encrypted volumes).
| m_eiman wrote:
| > It's only Windows and macOS that don't
|
| You can run macOS from a USB disk, although it won't be a
| readonly live disc like the Linux ones.
| miki123211 wrote:
| Windows does, it's called Winpe. It's what the Windows
| installer media runs, but you can (could?) create your own
| images that boot straight to desktop. Winpe images that
| included a third-party screen reader were somewhat popular
| among the blind community at one point, before Narrator
| (the built-in screen reader) got decent and Microsoft
| started including it and related components in the
| installer. I think the original rationale behind this
| feature was the ability to make custom disks with data
| recovery tools and such.
|
| Mac OS can boot from external volumes too. It's not a
| traditional live image, the volume is usually writable and
| it's a real copy of Mac OS. We're probably talking actual
| HDD or SSD portable hard drives here, not flash drives, Mac
| OS isn't that small. You need a Mac to run one of these of
| course. No idea if this works across computers on Apple
| Silicon. The new Macs store a lot of the encryption and
| boot policy stuff in the SE, so I have no idea if booting
| an unrecognized system would actually work.
| bitwize wrote:
| Mac OS used to boot from an HFS filesystem on a CD. I
| wouldn't be surprised if it could boot from Goddamn
| anything that could hold it today.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Not merely the limited functionality of WinPE or WinRE.
|
| It's "Windows-to-Go", introduced in Windows 8.0 which had
| the full Windows functionality contained on the USB
| stick, if the bootable stick met the high-performance
| requirements and had firmware indicating to Windows that
| the USB stick was not a "Removable Device".
|
| This was gradually deprecated for the most part:
|
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-
| versions/windows/...
| miah_ wrote:
| Hiren's bootcd is a bootable Windows image with lots of
| utilities bundled in.
|
| https://www.hirensbootcd.org/
|
| "Hiren's BootCD PE (Preinstallation Environment) is a
| restored edition of Hiren's BootCD based on Windows 11 PE
| x64. Given the absence of official updates after November
| 2012, the PE version is currently under development by the
| fans of Hiren's BootCD. It features a curated selection of
| the best free tools while being tailored for new-age
| computers, supporting UEFI booting and requiring a minimum
| of 4 GB RAM."
| jetbalsa wrote:
| Alpine in Diskless mode is the closest I can think of as a
| good way of doing this.
|
| Also the Windows ADK to make a custom Windows PE is how HBCD
| is made to load a windows desktop with a bunch of tools off a
| CDROM
| zozbot234 wrote:
| SD cards are the modern floppy, you can even boot a complete
| system from them.
| toast0 wrote:
| CD-RW, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, and DVD-RAM all support random access
| writes of some form, and can be used as live block devices.
| CD-R, DVD-R, and DVD+R can be used too, with limitations
| because it's a write once media; you can't really erase
| anything, so you'll fill up the disc eventually.
|
| Probably similar for BD-RE (recordable, erasable) and BD-R,
| too.
| SpecialistK wrote:
| Sony's logic was... missing.
|
| There was a SCSI drive for data storage in 1995, but it
| required special Data discs instead of standard audio ones:
| https://www.minidisc.wiki/equipment/sony/misc/mdh-10
| (disclaimer, I run this site)
|
| They finally did allow mass storage usage with Hi-MD as the
| format was dying out, but too little too late.
|
| There's now a FUSE driver PoC for standard MD devices that
| have USB ports (NetMD) thanks to reverse engineering.
| livrem wrote:
| I have a 1.44 MB floppy here somewhere that boots MS-DOS with
| Windows 1.01. I do not remember if I even had to do anything
| special to fit that on a single bootable floppy. Probably not.
| From the first item I find on archive.org it looks like Windows
| 1.0 was distributed on four 360 kB floppies.
| drewzero1 wrote:
| I had Windows 1.01 and 2.03 on boot floppies, they were both
| small enough to just copy the files into a DOS bootdisk and fit
| fine. However in my experience most of the programs that I
| wanted to run in Windows that wouldn't run in DOS required at
| least Windows 3.x to work.
| kotaKat wrote:
| There was also the commercial products going into the 9x era -
| 98lite still surprisingly exists.
|
| https://www.litepc.com/98lite.html
| fsiefken wrote:
| With 98lite or 98micro and kernelex you could run firefox 52
| (2017) and java8, but you need more then 1 floppy.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Recall a project back in the days where the customer wanted to
| upgrade their workstations but also save money, so we designed a
| solution where they'd have a beefy NT4-based Citrix server and
| reusing their 486 desktop machines by running the RDP client on
| Windows 3.11.
|
| To make deployment easy and smooth, it was decided to use network
| booting and running Windows from a RAM disk.
|
| The machines had 8MB of memory and it was found we needed 4MB for
| Windows to be happy, so we had a 4MB RAM disk to squeeze
| everything into. A colleague spent a lot of time slimming Windows
| down, but got stuck on the printer drivers. They had 4-5
| different HP printers which required different drivers, and
| including all of them took way too much space.
|
| He came to me and asked if I had some solution, and after some
| back and forth we found that we could reliably detect which
| printer was connected by scanning for various strings in the BIOS
| memory area. While not hired as a programmer, I had several years
| experience by then, so I whipped up a tiny executable which
| scanned the BIOS for a given string. He then used that in the
| autoexec.bat file to selectively copy the correct printer driver.
|
| Project rolled out to thousands of users across several hundred
| locations (one server per location) without a hitch, and worked
| quite well from what I recall.
| brnt wrote:
| And here I am, in a shop of about 3K FTE, where we are squeezed
| 6 persons onto a single socket Xeon which barely beats an
| iPhone 15 Pro rendering those 12 screen worth of data slowing
| down to a crawl, huge latency, crappy disk latency too (feels
| like were all on the same spinning Rust, but it's Windows and
| some VMWare middleware so who knows why this is slow).
|
| Somehow snappyness is completely eradicated.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| >Somehow snappyness is completely eradicated.
|
| Barely _inadequate_ engineering by design.
|
| Actually that's a difficult target to hit accurately and
| there's a fine line between it and barely _adequate_
| engineering leadership.
|
| And even if it's adequate, is barely adequate what you wanted
| anyway?
| n6h6 wrote:
| Beautiful work
| magicalhippo wrote:
| It was quite something to behold.
|
| I also learned some valuable lessons in project planning and
| execution... they had a few guys who sat for 1.5 years to
| plan the rollout, working with suppliers to plan deliveries
| of the hardware etc.
|
| When the time came we rolled out all the several hundred
| locations in just over 3 months, which included assembling
| and basic configuration of the servers at base, shipping the
| servers and then migrating data onsite from the old UNIX
| server (mailboxes, home directories etc).
|
| We only had two issues, one server had gotten the hard disk
| cables disconnected during transport, easy fix had the
| technician on site been Compaq certified (had to get shipped
| back to base and out again), and another had a weird hardware
| error which caused the server to freeze when scrolling large
| log files in Notepad (replaced the server and all was good).
| Beyond that it went flawless.
| RulerOf wrote:
| >it was decided to use network booting and running Windows from
| a RAM disk.
|
| What tech did that use? I imagine a "modern" system doing this
| would use a small RAM disk for the base Windows installation to
| boot from with any critical apps inside, and a second disk
| image mounted via HTTP for any "bulk" data, all via a custom
| iPXE build.
|
| But NT4 predates the PXE standard by a number of years, and
| also the concept of mounting disk images via HTTP (or other SAN
| protocol). Was this some Netware stuff perhaps?
| harikb wrote:
| Novell netware type LAN, with network book, existed for even
| DOS, pre Windows 3.1
|
| Edit: yes, wikipedia seems to confirm my recollection
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetWare
| cduzz wrote:
| bootp / tftpboot were used to provision diskless systems
| (diskless workstations / X-terminals) even in the very early
| 1990s (and likely before, but I didn't interact with them
| until college computer labs).
|
| On scanning my brain-based archives I can't recall how IP
| addresses were assigned and a brief asking of google "bootp
| vs dhcp" leads me to believe that with bootp there was just a
| static list of IP / MAC mappings for already-known diskless
| devices.
|
| Old network cards could have a boot rom in them; this
| https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=86741 discusses the
| magic and a couple of the non-pxe protocols.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| I think you're correct about bootp.
|
| A bootp server app generally listens for a MAC broadcast
| which appears when another physically connected device
| sends a "bootp request" into the network, so the bootp
| server can compare the MAC against its whitelist and assign
| its corresponding designated fixed IP address on the local
| network. Which IP address will then be remembered by the
| requesting device and is used from that point forward, not
| much differently than an address assigned by DHCP.
|
| Some hardware like early HP ethernet printers did not
| retain their assigned IP address through a power failure.
| So there had to be a functional bootp server app up and
| running before you powered up the printer or the printer's
| initial bootp request would go unanswered and it was no
| good to anybody.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| While it used NT4 this was around y2k, I recall we also had
| to test all the 486 and BIOS combinations they had if they
| survived y2k transition (one failed!). Which also means my
| memory is hazy.
|
| Anyway, what comes to mind is Etherboot[1]. I'm pretty sure
| he used BOOTP[2] with a TFTP server for the distribution
| part.
|
| [1]: http://etherboot.org/dokuwiki-2017-02-19b/about
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrap_Protocol
| magicalhippo wrote:
| > a beefy NT4-based Citrix server
|
| This was also when I learned about the pitfalls of
| multithreading...
|
| I had started trying to use multithreading, and had implemented
| it in my raytracer. It worked like a charm on my machine.
|
| During that project they brought a 4-socket server in the lab
| for testing, so after hours I fired up my raytracer on it,
| excited to see the promised 4x speedup... only to be met by an
| immediate access violation.
|
| I had of course missed a lock, but it worked fine on my
| computer because it only had a single CPU (core) so even if I
| spawned multiple threads, the chances of them tripping over
| each other at that point was very low. Not so when they could
| actually run simultaneously.
| fleeno wrote:
| I recently slimmed down Windows 3.0 to run it from a 1MB SRAM
| card on a MS-DOS 5.0 palmtop. I just did it by trial and error,
| and I think I can slim it down further from this guide, though
| they're using Double Space, which I won't have.
|
| I'm always sort of amazed how well Windows 3.x runs on hardware
| that would have been a bit old even when 3.0 was released.
| narag wrote:
| Somehow related: I used to run both 3.11 and 95 over the same DOS
| 5 (?) installation. It's a less known fact that, although Windows
| 95 ran in protected mode, it was started as a DOS real-mode
| program before switching modes and, when it was run from a DOS
| command line, it shut down back to the DOS prompt, so I could run
| both Windows versions without completely rebooting. It was useful
| because at the time I was programming versions of the same
| program for both systems.
|
| That means that Windows 3 was compatible with the newer DOS
| version that came underneath 95. If someone still has the
| software and wants to test it, IIRC the only thing needed was to
| edit autoexec.bat and have different directories for every
| Windows.
| hapless wrote:
| Microsoft used to sell Windows as a runtime. Like, you would ship
| Windows on floppy disks as part of your software product for end-
| users.
|
| 16 bit Windows was consciously designed, intentionally made
| modular, to accomplish things like this. Albeit the author was
| surely not the intended customer!
| Lammy wrote:
| I love how another page of this site uses HTML tables to simulate
| the Windows 3.11 Setup screens:
| http://www.geocities.ws/politalk/win31/multmode.htm
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-26 23:02 UTC)