Why was Windows for Workgroups 3.11 available for quite a long time?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
As far as I know, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was released before Windows 95, and went obsolete on the last day of 2001. However, it was still made available until November 2008. Why was that so?
I mean, online sources say that that was so because it was popular among embedded systems. However, for such systems you had Windows XP and Vista Embedded (Compact) versions too, so why was it still available for that long?
workgroup windows-3.1
asked Dec 30 '13 at 5:52
gparyanigparyani
1,31272141
add a comment |
As far as I know, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was released before Windows 95, and went obsolete on the last day of 2001. However, it was still made available until November 2008. Why was that so?
I mean, online sources say that that was so because it was popular among embedded systems. However, for such systems you had Windows XP and Vista Embedded (Compact) versions too, so why was it still available for that long?
workgroup windows-3.1
asked Dec 30 '13 at 5:52
gparyanigparyani
1,31272141
My guess would be that embedded systems with Win 3.1 would require MUCH less system resources than XP or Vista, hence the continued support for that long.
– Lawrence
Dec 30 '13 at 6:14
Cheapness, at the time Embedded programmers tended to stagnate on a particular OS. 16 Bit Win 3.11 as opposed to upgrading to the next thing and adopting 32 bit programming. We went through the same thing on the Win95 to WinXP hump when we escaped DOS based underpinnings with a 32 bit environment and moved to basically NT kernel and a full 32 bit environment.
– Fiasco Labs
Dec 30 '13 at 6:56
This question is not possible to answer unless you work at Microsoft. The simplest explaination is that enough people with enough money wanted it to be available
– Ramhound
Dec 30 '13 at 12:01
add a comment |
As far as I know, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was released before Windows 95, and went obsolete on the last day of 2001. However, it was still made available until November 2008. Why was that so?
I mean, online sources say that that was so because it was popular among embedded systems. However, for such systems you had Windows XP and Vista Embedded (Compact) versions too, so why was it still available for that long?
workgroup windows-3.1
asked Dec 30 '13 at 5:52
gparyanigparyani
1,31272141
As far as I know, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was released before Windows 95, and went obsolete on the last day of 2001. However, it was still made available until November 2008. Why was that so?
I mean, online sources say that that was so because it was popular among embedded systems. However, for such systems you had Windows XP and Vista Embedded (Compact) versions too, so why was it still available for that long?
workgroup windows-3.1
workgroup windows-3.1
asked Dec 30 '13 at 5:52
gparyanigparyani
1,31272141
asked Dec 30 '13 at 5:52
gparyanigparyani
1,31272141
asked Dec 30 '13 at 5:52
gparyanigparyani
1,31272141
asked Dec 30 '13 at 5:52
gparyanigparyani
1,31272141
asked Dec 30 '13 at 5:52
gparyanigparyani
1,31272141
1,31272141
My guess would be that embedded systems with Win 3.1 would require MUCH less system resources than XP or Vista, hence the continued support for that long.
– Lawrence
Dec 30 '13 at 6:14
Cheapness, at the time Embedded programmers tended to stagnate on a particular OS. 16 Bit Win 3.11 as opposed to upgrading to the next thing and adopting 32 bit programming. We went through the same thing on the Win95 to WinXP hump when we escaped DOS based underpinnings with a 32 bit environment and moved to basically NT kernel and a full 32 bit environment.
– Fiasco Labs
Dec 30 '13 at 6:56
This question is not possible to answer unless you work at Microsoft. The simplest explaination is that enough people with enough money wanted it to be available
– Ramhound
Dec 30 '13 at 12:01
add a comment |
My guess would be that embedded systems with Win 3.1 would require MUCH less system resources than XP or Vista, hence the continued support for that long.
– Lawrence
Dec 30 '13 at 6:14
Cheapness, at the time Embedded programmers tended to stagnate on a particular OS. 16 Bit Win 3.11 as opposed to upgrading to the next thing and adopting 32 bit programming. We went through the same thing on the Win95 to WinXP hump when we escaped DOS based underpinnings with a 32 bit environment and moved to basically NT kernel and a full 32 bit environment.
– Fiasco Labs
Dec 30 '13 at 6:56
This question is not possible to answer unless you work at Microsoft. The simplest explaination is that enough people with enough money wanted it to be available
– Ramhound
Dec 30 '13 at 12:01
My guess would be that embedded systems with Win 3.1 would require MUCH less system resources than XP or Vista, hence the continued support for that long.
– Lawrence
Dec 30 '13 at 6:14
My guess would be that embedded systems with Win 3.1 would require MUCH less system resources than XP or Vista, hence the continued support for that long.
– Lawrence
Dec 30 '13 at 6:14
Cheapness, at the time Embedded programmers tended to stagnate on a particular OS. 16 Bit Win 3.11 as opposed to upgrading to the next thing and adopting 32 bit programming. We went through the same thing on the Win95 to WinXP hump when we escaped DOS based underpinnings with a 32 bit environment and moved to basically NT kernel and a full 32 bit environment.
– Fiasco Labs
Dec 30 '13 at 6:56
Cheapness, at the time Embedded programmers tended to stagnate on a particular OS. 16 Bit Win 3.11 as opposed to upgrading to the next thing and adopting 32 bit programming. We went through the same thing on the Win95 to WinXP hump when we escaped DOS based underpinnings with a 32 bit environment and moved to basically NT kernel and a full 32 bit environment.
– Fiasco Labs
Dec 30 '13 at 6:56
This question is not possible to answer unless you work at Microsoft. The simplest explaination is that enough people with enough money wanted it to be available
– Ramhound
Dec 30 '13 at 12:01
This question is not possible to answer unless you work at Microsoft. The simplest explaination is that enough people with enough money wanted it to be available
– Ramhound
Dec 30 '13 at 12:01
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 uses cooperative multitasking, meaning that once a program starts its turn on the CPU, it can continue running until it explicitly gives up control. Every newer version of Windows uses preemptive multitasking, where a program can be interrupted at any time.
If you're writing a program for an embedded system, you probably want the control and effectively realtime responsiveness that cooperative multitasking allows. If Microsoft had dropped WfW 3.11, users would have been forced to re-write their software, and they'd probably have re-written it for a dedicated embedded OS such as VxWorks or QNX rather than for some Microsoft product.
answered Mar 11 at 23:30
MarkMark
1,13711018
add a comment |
It runs on intel, MIPS, DEC Alpha, and PowerPC. If you bought a non-Intel platform with Microsoft software, you're pretty much stuck. I can think of several large POS and ticketing systems that still use 16-bit Windows because it isn't broken yet and the investment in a hardware upgrade is too daunting.
answered Dec 30 '13 at 8:26
BandramiBandrami
1,3281014
1
You are mixing up your Windows flavours there. Windows for Workgroups was DOS+Windows, not Windows NT. Windows NT is the one that used to be available for lots of processors.
– JdeBP
Dec 30 '13 at 16:41
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f694721%2fwhy-was-windows-for-workgroups-3-11-available-for-quite-a-long-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 uses cooperative multitasking, meaning that once a program starts its turn on the CPU, it can continue running until it explicitly gives up control. Every newer version of Windows uses preemptive multitasking, where a program can be interrupted at any time.
If you're writing a program for an embedded system, you probably want the control and effectively realtime responsiveness that cooperative multitasking allows. If Microsoft had dropped WfW 3.11, users would have been forced to re-write their software, and they'd probably have re-written it for a dedicated embedded OS such as VxWorks or QNX rather than for some Microsoft product.
answered Mar 11 at 23:30
MarkMark
1,13711018
add a comment |
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 uses cooperative multitasking, meaning that once a program starts its turn on the CPU, it can continue running until it explicitly gives up control. Every newer version of Windows uses preemptive multitasking, where a program can be interrupted at any time.
If you're writing a program for an embedded system, you probably want the control and effectively realtime responsiveness that cooperative multitasking allows. If Microsoft had dropped WfW 3.11, users would have been forced to re-write their software, and they'd probably have re-written it for a dedicated embedded OS such as VxWorks or QNX rather than for some Microsoft product.
answered Mar 11 at 23:30
MarkMark
1,13711018
add a comment |
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 uses cooperative multitasking, meaning that once a program starts its turn on the CPU, it can continue running until it explicitly gives up control. Every newer version of Windows uses preemptive multitasking, where a program can be interrupted at any time.
If you're writing a program for an embedded system, you probably want the control and effectively realtime responsiveness that cooperative multitasking allows. If Microsoft had dropped WfW 3.11, users would have been forced to re-write their software, and they'd probably have re-written it for a dedicated embedded OS such as VxWorks or QNX rather than for some Microsoft product.
answered Mar 11 at 23:30
MarkMark
1,13711018
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 uses cooperative multitasking, meaning that once a program starts its turn on the CPU, it can continue running until it explicitly gives up control. Every newer version of Windows uses preemptive multitasking, where a program can be interrupted at any time.
If you're writing a program for an embedded system, you probably want the control and effectively realtime responsiveness that cooperative multitasking allows. If Microsoft had dropped WfW 3.11, users would have been forced to re-write their software, and they'd probably have re-written it for a dedicated embedded OS such as VxWorks or QNX rather than for some Microsoft product.
answered Mar 11 at 23:30
MarkMark
1,13711018
answered Mar 11 at 23:30
MarkMark
1,13711018
answered Mar 11 at 23:30
MarkMark
1,13711018
answered Mar 11 at 23:30
MarkMark
1,13711018
1,13711018
add a comment |
add a comment |
It runs on intel, MIPS, DEC Alpha, and PowerPC. If you bought a non-Intel platform with Microsoft software, you're pretty much stuck. I can think of several large POS and ticketing systems that still use 16-bit Windows because it isn't broken yet and the investment in a hardware upgrade is too daunting.
answered Dec 30 '13 at 8:26
BandramiBandrami
1,3281014
1
You are mixing up your Windows flavours there. Windows for Workgroups was DOS+Windows, not Windows NT. Windows NT is the one that used to be available for lots of processors.
– JdeBP
Dec 30 '13 at 16:41
add a comment |
It runs on intel, MIPS, DEC Alpha, and PowerPC. If you bought a non-Intel platform with Microsoft software, you're pretty much stuck. I can think of several large POS and ticketing systems that still use 16-bit Windows because it isn't broken yet and the investment in a hardware upgrade is too daunting.
answered Dec 30 '13 at 8:26
BandramiBandrami
1,3281014
1
You are mixing up your Windows flavours there. Windows for Workgroups was DOS+Windows, not Windows NT. Windows NT is the one that used to be available for lots of processors.
– JdeBP
Dec 30 '13 at 16:41
add a comment |
It runs on intel, MIPS, DEC Alpha, and PowerPC. If you bought a non-Intel platform with Microsoft software, you're pretty much stuck. I can think of several large POS and ticketing systems that still use 16-bit Windows because it isn't broken yet and the investment in a hardware upgrade is too daunting.
answered Dec 30 '13 at 8:26
BandramiBandrami
1,3281014
It runs on intel, MIPS, DEC Alpha, and PowerPC. If you bought a non-Intel platform with Microsoft software, you're pretty much stuck. I can think of several large POS and ticketing systems that still use 16-bit Windows because it isn't broken yet and the investment in a hardware upgrade is too daunting.
answered Dec 30 '13 at 8:26
BandramiBandrami
1,3281014
answered Dec 30 '13 at 8:26
BandramiBandrami
1,3281014
answered Dec 30 '13 at 8:26
BandramiBandrami
1,3281014
answered Dec 30 '13 at 8:26
BandramiBandrami
1,3281014
1,3281014
1
You are mixing up your Windows flavours there. Windows for Workgroups was DOS+Windows, not Windows NT. Windows NT is the one that used to be available for lots of processors.
– JdeBP
Dec 30 '13 at 16:41
add a comment |
1
You are mixing up your Windows flavours there. Windows for Workgroups was DOS+Windows, not Windows NT. Windows NT is the one that used to be available for lots of processors.
– JdeBP
Dec 30 '13 at 16:41
1
1
You are mixing up your Windows flavours there. Windows for Workgroups was DOS+Windows, not Windows NT. Windows NT is the one that used to be available for lots of processors.
– JdeBP
Dec 30 '13 at 16:41
You are mixing up your Windows flavours there. Windows for Workgroups was DOS+Windows, not Windows NT. Windows NT is the one that used to be available for lots of processors.
– JdeBP
Dec 30 '13 at 16:41
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f694721%2fwhy-was-windows-for-workgroups-3-11-available-for-quite-a-long-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
My guess would be that embedded systems with Win 3.1 would require MUCH less system resources than XP or Vista, hence the continued support for that long.
– Lawrence
Dec 30 '13 at 6:14
Cheapness, at the time Embedded programmers tended to stagnate on a particular OS. 16 Bit Win 3.11 as opposed to upgrading to the next thing and adopting 32 bit programming. We went through the same thing on the Win95 to WinXP hump when we escaped DOS based underpinnings with a 32 bit environment and moved to basically NT kernel and a full 32 bit environment.
– Fiasco Labs
Dec 30 '13 at 6:56
This question is not possible to answer unless you work at Microsoft. The simplest explaination is that enough people with enough money wanted it to be available
– Ramhound
Dec 30 '13 at 12:01