Main Menu

Recent posts

#1
Quote from: Bella on Yesterday at 07:18:16 PMHe looks good!
Quote from: stewartsage on Yesterday at 09:31:48 PMHeadband's interesting!  I too like the vest, the pocket 5s are neat.
Thank you both! :D
#2
OS-tan Talk / Re: More IBM-tans II: The DECk...
Last post by Bella - Today at 08:41:36 AM
Quote from: stewartsage on Yesterday at 09:40:10 PMI think at the time there was talk of an ENIAC-tan being made but it never came to realization so I never filled that out.  All-in-all it's not a very filled out concept.  Given that I've reworked much more complete concepts, I should probably give CALDIC-tan an overhaul too.

Do eet. I want to see ENIAC California Adventure!
#3
General Chat / Re: random picture thread
Last post by VonDaab - Today at 04:18:21 AM
Also I remember not only graphics had issues when launching through windows, but soundcards were also still very much designed around DOS, so those had varying degree of functionality in Windows.
#4
General Chat / Re: random picture thread
Last post by oobabasama - Today at 04:14:57 AM
Quote from: VonDaab on Today at 04:03:29 AMIt's really just how in practical use there just wasn't too much software made to utilize Win3.1, unlike later OSs like Win95 that actually started to have software made specifically for launching within windows.

Do note that I said earlier "how much stuff required launching from DOS" not "everything had to be launched through DOS".
Ah, pardon my tone, thought you were saying 3.1 wasn't an OS. There was a lot of software for it but not a lot of games. One fun fact about 3.1 is that the reason it didn't have much of a game industry is because its GDI (the graphics API) was built almost exclusively for drawing productivity software rather than games. WinG actually fixed this issue, and Gabe Newell even ported DOOM to it, but that was in 1994 and Windows 95 released the following year  with DirectX so it didn't get much attention.
#5
General Chat / Re: random picture thread
Last post by VonDaab - Today at 04:03:29 AM
It's really just how in practical use there just wasn't too much software made to utilize Win3.1, unlike later OSs like Win95 that actually started to have software made specifically for launching within windows.

Do note that I said earlier "how much stuff required launching from DOS" not "everything had to be launched through DOS".
#6
General Chat / Re: random picture thread
Last post by oobabasama - Today at 12:07:10 AM
Quote from: VonDaab on Yesterday at 07:04:15 PMAs someone whose first PC had 3.1. The amount of stuff on that system that straight up just required launching in MS-DOS instead of in Windows... Yeah, 3.1 is really just a pretty glazing on top of a MS-DOS system.
No it isn't, I'm not sure if you understand the picture I posted was an ironic shitpost that makes fun of people who push the "3.1 is a shell it's not a real OS" myth, but Windows 3.1 fully virtualizes MS-DOS, I don't know what about some apps launching in MS-DOS rather than Windows makes 3.1 not an OS, that's a very weird standard. Your standard would also disqualify Linux because most apps are natively developed for Windows rather than it.
What does Windows 3.1 lack that Windows 95 has, according to you, and what about such disqualifies it as an operating system, but not 95? Unless you don't think Windows 95-98SE are OSes either?
#7
More stiff flared skirts, wing, things for OS-tans, I say.

2k-kun wants to talk to me about how I've overspent the club budget and we're still not ready for the school festival.
#8
OS-tan Talk / Re: More IBM-tans II: The DECk...
Last post by stewartsage - Yesterday at 09:40:10 PM
I think at the time there was talk of an ENIAC-tan being made but it never came to realization so I never filled that out.  All-in-all it's not a very filled out concept.  Given that I've reworked much more complete concepts, I should probably give CALDIC-tan an overhaul too.
#9
General Chat / Re: random picture thread
Last post by stewartsage - Yesterday at 09:35:20 PM
#10
Headband's interesting!  I too like the vest, the pocket 5s are neat.