226

Simply put, is there a modern browser that runs on Windows 3.1? Sometimes there's situations that restrict the ability for an environment to be upgraded, and web browsing is a must these days. The idea is that that it can render a site such as superuser.com

The existing browsing options for that OS simply break on most sites.

OLD QUESTION

Ok, so I know what you are thinking: "What on earth are you doing still running Windows 3.1?"

Here's the situation. The computer running 3.1 is also the controller for $150,000 bandsaw made in Germany, so any chance of upgrading the actual computer without spending quite a bit of money up front to the manufacture is slim to none. The problem is that the timeclock software is on a web driven platform. Netscape 4.0 does not display the site correctly and does not respond to the button pushes like "login" or "punch".

Things like Java or flash are not necassary. AFAIK, it just needs to support HTML 4 and CSS.

EDIT:

So I figure it might be a good idea to disclose the software being used. It's [Gorrie Regan's Time and Attendance][1] software. They have done some updates since we first acquired them. The service is hosted through a combination SQL server and IIS.

[1]: http://www.gregan.com/timeandattendance/enterprisemanagement.html

Chad Harrison
  • 6,069
  • 13
  • 44
  • 60
  • 13
    You may want to look into a physical clock. They have biometric finger/hand scanners, swipe cards, prox cards. A lot of clocks are wireless and can be integrated with time and attendance softwares. Some also carry the capability of bell timers, door entry, accrual balances, schedules and time restrictions. Probably better to do this than open up this computer with outdated security software to the web. – kobaltz May 10 '12 at 21:23
  • Upgrade 3.1 to XP...http://www.winrumors.com/man-upgrades-windows-1-0-to-windows-7-via-every-other-windows-versions/ – Moab May 10 '12 at 21:27
  • 41
    @Moab not a good idea to upgrade if the computer is being used to control equipment. That computer is better left alone (and unnetworked if possible). – Renan May 10 '12 at 21:27
  • 5
    @Renan Image the hard drive to another hard drive to experiment with, not a big deal if you know what you are doing. – Moab May 10 '12 at 21:29
  • @Moab that's a good idea, too – Renan May 10 '12 at 21:29
  • 222
    The real question is why anyone would use the bandsaw controller to log into your time tracking platform. – Oliver Salzburg May 10 '12 at 21:29
  • 6
    I think IE 5.0 is the latest version that will actually run on Windows 3.1 – C-dizzle May 10 '12 at 21:32
  • 4
    @OliverSalzburg Two words: Lean manufacturing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing – Chad Harrison May 10 '12 at 21:32
  • 1
    IE browser archive...http://browsers.evolt.org/?dir=archive/ie/win16 – Moab May 10 '12 at 21:35
  • 5
    You can get older IE from [OldApps](http://www.oldapps.com/internet_explorer.php). I also second Moab to image the drive for testing purposes. I know that the earliest version of IE that supports CSS is 3.02 – Darius May 10 '12 at 21:36
  • I designed my own web browser using VB, maybe it would work! :) – C-dizzle May 10 '12 at 21:41
  • 2
    Imaging would be a great idea if I could find hardware that would support it. I'm not talking about the machinery, I mean just the computer components. Also, I have not been successful in virtualization with windows 3.1 because it doesn't support the virtuallize hardware. – Chad Harrison May 10 '12 at 21:41
  • 2
    @C-dizzle What ever you built your application still depends on the runtime library that is supported by the OS. If was built on a 32-bit OS, its a no-go. – Chad Harrison May 10 '12 at 21:43
  • 2
    There has to be a way, hell they put a man on the moon in 69. Sounds like a coding project for someone. – Moab May 10 '12 at 21:44
  • 3
    The computer running 3.1 is also the controller for $150,000 bandsaw made in Germany, *so don't preserve its state for the necessary bandsaw operation and don't run new software on it*. – Ronald May 10 '12 at 23:04
  • 2
    @hydroparadise - another option is to try to run it under [Wine](http://winehq.org/) on a Linux machine. – detly May 11 '12 at 03:05
  • 1
    "modern" and "Windows 3.1" do not go in the same sentance, IMO. Time to spend some money - if the machine is that valauble doing that amount of work then surely the higher-ups would let some money go? – tombull89 May 11 '12 at 08:32
  • 3
    I would tell the owner of the computer and bandsaw that there is complete consensus on this being completely insane. NO ONE in here would recommend this approach, clearly not even yourself. If they want their expensive bandsaw to operate in a safe manner, then they'll have to upgrade. If they won't pay for an upgrade, then they're saving money on safety. In short; if these are the requirements, then their requirements will cost money. It's just that simple. – Teekin May 11 '12 at 10:52
  • 3
    I still upvoted the question because it's kind of interesting, if only for curiosity's sake. – Teekin May 11 '12 at 10:52
  • 1
    The cost of supporting this machine is higher that buying a new one. – Lukasz Madon May 11 '12 at 12:40
  • 2
    *lean manufacturing* Yeah, this has to be trolling – Ben Brocka May 11 '12 at 13:04
  • 1
    @lukas I don't think so. Have you ever had to put one these things into production? You have to account for TOTAL cost of ownership which includes shipping, setup, support, and time. All the sudden the the new $150,000 saw costs $200,000 before its even used. – Chad Harrison May 11 '12 at 13:06
  • 3
    Management has asked about this in the name of *lean manufacturing*. I didn't say I agreed with it. – Chad Harrison May 11 '12 at 13:11
  • 5
    Just consider that you don't have a *computer* with a bandsaw attached to it. You have a *bandsaw* and some things that are used to control it, including a Win 3.1 computer. It's not "yours computer", it's the bandsaw controller. – woliveirajr May 11 '12 at 13:27
  • 3
    @hydroparadise Why don't make a descent comparison and show it to management(with good analogy like "20 years for OS is like 50 for a car"? Take into account the risk. What is the risk of failure(pretty high when you add not-supported functionality to this OS)? What is the cost if production stops and the company cannot fulfill the contracts and lose customers? What is the cost of your and others time that you have to spent upgrading it(you have out-of the-box browsers in other OSes)?New device use less power and produce more usually. Very often companies stop making spare parts after 25 years – Lukasz Madon May 11 '12 at 13:44
  • "20 years for OS is like 50 for a car"? <- Awesome analogy. – Chad Harrison May 11 '12 at 13:51
  • By 2038, none of this will matter because you'll overflow signed unix timestamps on 32bit systems. Good luck entering your timesheet then! – Yamikuronue May 11 '12 at 14:11
  • 5
    I thought the question was "do you know a browser than runs windows 3.1 ?". – jokoon May 11 '12 at 14:37
  • @Yamikuronue the server might be on 64bits, that's not relevant – Clement Herreman May 11 '12 at 15:32
  • 2
    @Yamikuronue: Luckily, the timestamps used by MS-DOS go up to year 2107. – u1686_grawity May 11 '12 at 15:45
  • Make the timeclock use simple HTML and JavaScript. – Joshua Drake May 11 '12 at 16:26
  • 6
    Why can't you use a different computer to log into the timecard application? – Sam Skuce May 11 '12 at 16:37
  • 38
    If management have asked this in the name of "lean manufacturing" then simply tell them that the cost of making this work far outstrips the cost of using another more appropriate machine to do the timekeeping job. Trying to use a spanner to hammer a nail isn't lean manufacturing, it's *stupid* manufacturing. – Mokubai May 11 '12 at 16:39
  • 4
    I would say @Mokubai is 100% correct here. You've already probably spent more of their money (in the terms of the cost of your time) discussing this issue here than the cost of buying a cheap desktop to use for your time app. You can buy a modern computer for $250 (maybe even less) nowadays. – Charles Boyung May 11 '12 at 18:51
  • 4
    And while we're at it, by definition, wouldn't requiring time to be tracked be something that should be eliminated if you are doing "lean manufacturing". Tracking employees' time really doesn't create value for the customer... – Charles Boyung May 11 '12 at 18:53
  • 1
    Well, the numbers that get tracked help with estimating efforts for future projects. They see it as necessary overhead. Not exactly value added, but the pojects vary greatly in scope so numbers collected are rellied on heavily. – Chad Harrison May 11 '12 at 19:22
  • 1
    @hydroparadise `the numbers that get tracked help with estimating efforts for future projects... but the projects vary greatly in scope` `numbers collected are relied on heavily`, the first two negate the last one. – Joshua Drake May 11 '12 at 19:50
  • @JoshuaDrake Are you saying no data is better than some data when doing projections? We aren't talking widgets here. – Chad Harrison May 11 '12 at 20:02
  • 2
    @hydroparadise I am saying that heavily relying on past numbers when projects are known to vary widely is a very poor practice indeed. That said, I cannot think of any situation where **wrong** data is better than no data. – Joshua Drake May 11 '12 at 20:04
  • 16
    I voted this up because either your life sucks or you've done a terrific job entertaining me. Either way, it's wroth an uptick. :) – tewha May 11 '12 at 20:53
  • 6
    I would honestly consider finding another place to work before your management's shoddy approach causes someone to get injured when this crazy setup inevitably breaks. – Daenyth May 11 '12 at 23:19
  • 1
    Mount an iPad next to the unit's regular display. Or one of the computers with built-in screen (or vice-versa) such as those seen often in Dr's offices here in the US. – Daniel R Hicks May 12 '12 at 12:07
  • @hydroparadise Maybe you elaborate on the code used by ""login" or "punch" Can you simply use another computer to slave to the said BANDSAW terminal using 3.1 compatible "Remote Desktop" Is this the Mebor sawmill for Cheminis ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tw4l7BsD0cw – Tony Stewart EE75 May 11 '12 at 15:36
  • It would be harsh to CLOSE this post since got tremendous response both the Question and Answer!! ☺ – Rajesh Sinha Dec 29 '18 at 10:49

15 Answers15

207

Sorry to put this as an answer, since I can't give you one, but seemed too big for a comment.

To add to the people recommending not to do this: the more useful that you make the Win 3.1 machine (by allowing it to do other work), the longer the machine is just useful enough to not replace with something that makes sense.

Win3.1 is a horrible OS to have as a controller. Think of it as DOS with a GUI, which is what it is. There's no process isolation so a bad browser window (or any app) can scramble memory in the controller's memory space wreaking havoc. Since you have old browsers looking at modern HTML/CSS/JavaScript, there are a lot of possibilities for browser bugs and the odds of scrambled memory are relatively speaking, high.

There's also not a lot of Win3.1 support for realtime. Even Win95 was better, though not by much. This means that as apps try to cooperate and share the CPU, they don't necessarily have to, and some app or browser window may use up all of the CPU, throwing off the timing for the controller software. That may not end well. This is in fact a bandsaw.

There were (possibly still are) viruses for 3.1 (err, DOS really), so opening it up to any network should scare you. Any wise network engineer would require a firewall (if you could find one for Win3.1) and at that point you bog the machine down. Then, many answers recommend IE5, which is unpatchable at this point.

Win 3.1 was end-of-lifed about 4 years ago (surprisingly recently in my book). Internet Explorer 5.x had its last support of any kind in 2010. I'd tell my boss that this is connected to a bandsaw and we don't want any problems with the controller software. If the controller-software people were at all smart, they'd have a clause not allowing any other software on the controller box, or you void some support from them.

If you really need something close to the controller, I'd say WiFi+cheap tablet/used iPod Touch, but I'd obviously say you need to secure your WiFi network as well.

Andreas Rejbrand
  • 803
  • 2
  • 16
  • 33
Rich Homolka
  • 31,057
  • 6
  • 55
  • 80
  • 10
    Excellent points, but also keep in mind that the current computer might have been built to withstand an industrial environment, whereas a common consumer-grade tablet/iPod might not last long if it hasn't been built to withstand the fumes, dust, etc. – rob May 10 '12 at 22:44
  • 25
    @rob true enough, but I'd even then recommend some third option over a non-protective OS running an unpatched IE connecting to industrial equipment. – Rich Homolka May 10 '12 at 22:53
  • 6
    There's also not a lot of Win3.1 support for realtime. -- except for the fact that any application can seize the CPU for as long as it wants, not giving it to the OS or any other application. This includes the bandsaw controller app. – Random832 May 10 '12 at 23:57
  • 19
    This this this. The idea to put a browser in such a critical Win 3.1 box in that way is just mind-numbingly bad. I just woke up, so it's certainly the most stupid thing I've heard today :-) . The "Linux and Wine" solution that was mentioned sounds interesting to me if you necessarily _have to_ have a browser on the very same computer that operates the bandsaw (still stupid, but a lot more secure, and it will take care of another problem: the Win 3.1 computer _will_ break sometime. Be ready to upgrade). But for crying out loud: just get another _isolated_ computer or device to do this. – Daniel Andersson May 11 '12 at 05:43
  • @DanielAndersson - the Wine idea was mine, and it's not so much a solution to "I need a browser on this machine", but an idea for a more robust setup. As in, since the OP can't port the machine to a VM on a better machine, Linux + Wine might be the next most failsafe solution. – detly May 11 '12 at 09:54
  • I am compelled to agree. – Chad Harrison May 11 '12 at 13:13
  • 10
    Win3.1 may not provide any real-time capabilities, but it also doesn't get in the way of software that provides its own, by installing custom interrupt handlers. That's one of the few things that makes 16-bit software really not work on Win9x and XP, so I'm fairly confident that's what's going on. Upgrading the computer is therefore a non-starter. The real question is why anyone expects the bandsaw controller to continue working if the configuration is changed (adding new software, etc.) – Ben Voigt May 11 '12 at 23:09
  • 1
    i don't know how the accepted answer can be complaining about the design decisions made 20 years ago. You can whine all you like about what the hardware vendor should not have done - that doesn't change the fact that it was done; there's no value in complaining about it. You need to move forward and answer the question. – Ian Boyd May 12 '12 at 16:21
  • @rob you could wrap the ipad in a bag to withstand dust & fumes! – Toby Allen May 13 '12 at 08:18
  • I can't downvote, but this is not a good answer. The poster is asking for assistance, not opinions. – calenti May 13 '12 at 23:09
  • 4
    @calenti Sometimes the thing that the poster is asking to do is so mind-numbingly terrible that they really need to be discouraged away from doing it. The fact the poster accepted this answer (even if it's answering the question of "should I" rather than "how can I") says a lot. – fluffy May 14 '12 at 06:15
  • 1
    @IanBoyd I'm not complaining about the design decisions 20 years ago. I'm complaining about a possible decision today to horribly misuse said technology :) – Rich Homolka May 14 '12 at 20:03
  • 2
    @IanBoyd This is a perfect example of a [shoe or bottle question](http://weblogs.asp.net/alex_papadimoulis/archive/2005/05/25/408925.aspx) I strongly agree that answering the original question as asked is doing the OP a disservice and should help them solving the "real" problem not the asked problem. See [this discussion](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/122998/alternative-instead-of-real-answer/) on the SO meta for more discussion. – Scott Chamberlain May 14 '12 at 22:13
  • Why was this answer edited by @Community? – ripper234 May 15 '12 at 11:22
  • 1
    To everyone complaining that this isn't an answer: Rich is saving the OP from a potential safety disaster. Installing software that could overwrite the controller's memory or expose it to the public internet could end in somebody's *death*, so I think it's fair for the answer to be "no, don't do that", even if I'm usually annoyed by this sort of answer on the site. – Joseph Garvin Jun 15 '12 at 13:41
  • I've seen environments like this time and again... Doing anything with the controller, updating software etc is a **Bad Idea**! Leave it well alone and deploy your timeclock software on something else. The sheer expense (time&money) of damaging the old controller out weighs any excuses for updating it. *Keep it isolated, keep it working* for as long as possible. When it dies a natural 'unfixable' death; management will have to fork out, but until it does your comments will probably fall on deaf ears. Still voice your opinions, so you can't be held responsible at all when that happens! :) – HaydnWVN Jun 22 '12 at 12:59
107

Opera 3.62 might be the best match to a modern browser, that still runs on such an old system like Windows 3.1 (which even has no native support for TCP/IP). HTML and CSS support are quite nice for the age of this browser, but don't expect too much. Also note, that Opera 3.62 has no support for dynamic changes in websites through manipulation of the DOM, which makes modern JavaScript driven web applications unusable.

I would suggest to use another computer for the time clock software. Apart from your problem such an old system should only be run isolated from networks, because there are known unpatched vulnerabilities. On the other hand, one might argue, that there is virtually no network spreading malware runnning on such old platforms. Anyway I would not risk using such a special machine to do anything else apart from controlling the saw. What would you do if it breaks due to using it for tasks you could do on any other computer?

Gurken Papst
  • 4,182
  • 1
  • 18
  • 19
  • 2
    This seems like the best solution. Just place two computers in the same area. Solves the problem of allowing a Windows 3.1 access to the internet, and solve the use of an unsafe browser ( anything that runs on 3.1 would be unsafe ). – Ramhound May 11 '12 at 11:36
  • 3
    Thanks for an actual answer. Once things slow down a bit, I'll give this a shot! If all looks well, I'll set this to the answer. – Chad Harrison May 11 '12 at 13:08
  • 4
    I was wondering if the timeclock needed to be on the same computer for journaling or billing reasons (for operating the saw), or if it was just there as a convenience. If it not required for the equipment, move the feature to a different piece of hardware. – horatio May 11 '12 at 14:17
  • 1
    @horatio You are correct about the billing reasons. The time clock software has alot of project management features that allows you to allocate time and material to specific projects which helps track actual costs. It's looking like another "device" will be needed at the saw. – Chad Harrison May 11 '12 at 15:13
  • 1
    Does it act as an interlock (or similar) where the saw cannot be operated without punching in a job number etc.? – horatio May 11 '12 at 16:21
  • No, they operate independently. – Chad Harrison May 11 '12 at 16:33
  • 2
    0: The only correct answer to this question, _in this context_, is **DON'T**. This answer might have been ok in another context, of course. – o0'. May 13 '12 at 12:49
76

Err... Do you really want to give a second task to a computer from the stone age that is controlling a $150,000 bandsaw..?

Judge to plaintiff: Tell us how you lost your arm.
Plaintiff: Well, Bob was late to work that day and tried to punch the clock while I was using the bandsaw.
Prosecutor to defendant (Bob): Did you know that the bandsaw always stops while the time clock web site is opening?
Defendant: Sure, everyone knows that. We'd just wait for the person to click the Clock In or Clock Out button and then the saw would come right back on!
Plantiff: I didn't know Bob was late! The saw stops when a part gets stuck. How was I supposed to know that it would suddenly start back up while I was looking for the part in there..?

Roger Dahl
  • 966
  • 6
  • 7
39

  1. VNC still works for Windows 3.1. Install VNC and open a connection to a more capable machine, with shares that the Windows 3.1 machine can reach (or running an FTP server with IIS).

  2. Run an XWindows client on the 3.1 machine, and connect to a machine running XServer. Then you can run modern browsers in a terminal window.

Way to rock the classic tech. Windows 3.1 as the new OS/360 mainframe the company is afraid to replace. :)

slhck
  • 223,558
  • 70
  • 607
  • 592
calenti
  • 537
  • 3
  • 5
22

Technically, you might be able to get a more modern 32-bit browser to run on top of Win32s (which gives you a subset of 32-bit functionality for 16-bit Windows). If you want to try that, I'd start with "portable" versions of Opera, Mozilla/Firefox, etc. (I also mentioned this in a comment the other day, but deleted it because I didn't think it was advisable.)

That said, you might want to reconsider your decision not to try running the software on a newer machine. As Rich pointed out, there are many reasons not to run a web browser on your bandsaw controller PC.

However, at some point something bad will happen to this PC, and at that point you're going to lose a lot of money if you don't have a well-tested backup plan in place. I don't know much about lean manufacturing, but I do know that when a critical system goes down with no contingency plan in place, it has an immediate and direct effect on operations.

Something that won't cost you much right now (aside from time) would be to try copying the Windows 3.1 installation to a VM or emulator such as DOSBox, or even try to run the software directly on a newer version of Windows. Many programs won't run on the first try, but can be made to run with the right compatibility options. I was pleasantly surprised several years ago when I was able to make an insurance company's proprietary DOS app run just fine on Windows 2000 and XP by doing nothing more than supplying an extra flag to command.com or cmd.exe. (Note that command.com is apparently only available on 32-bit versions of Windows 7.) Even if you can't get any support from the manufacturer, you may be able to figure it out yourself or find a local independent computer shop or techie who is up to the challenge.

Also consider any processing time that you're currently wasting. Maybe opening and saving files for your bandsaw controller is instantaneous, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could recover at least several minutes a day by shortening or eliminating all the "loading..." screens. The insurance agents in my anecdote were ecstatic, because the obvious side effect of migrating to newer machines was that everything ran faster, so they were no longer waiting for screens to come up.

If all goes well on a test PC running a more modern OS, you can set it up as a permanent replacement and keep the old PC as a backup. (You should be able to pick up a 5- or 10-year-old industrial PC for pretty cheap, if a regular desktop machine isn't likely to survive very long in your environment.) You still probably don't want to run a web browser on it for real-time performance, security, and uptime reasons, but at least you won't have to worry as much about that fateful day when the PC breaks.

Community
  • 1
rob
  • 14,148
  • 5
  • 52
  • 85
  • In addition to a VM or DOSBox, there's [Wine](http://winehq.org/) on Linux. – detly May 11 '12 at 03:04
  • 6
    The controller is almost certainly a real-time application. This means that it needs to run for, say, ms every 100 ms or so. In an emulator, this is not guaranteed. If you start up an application (like the browser) in another window, it will take CPU time from the VM or emulator. There are real-time versions of Linux, but the VM would require custom programming to make this work. – Kevin Vermeer May 11 '12 at 13:24
  • @KevinVermeer true--I've clarified that the real-time performance is one of the reasons not to run a web browser on the host OS. – rob May 14 '12 at 05:22
16

If your web-based timeclock software has only 2 or 3 menus with 4-5 options, I guess that asking a cheap programmer to develop a Windows 3.1 application that fetch data on the website and sends the appropriate data would be the simplest way to go.

Chances are that your low-cost programmer already has Windows 3.1 as his primary OS on his 486 DX33.

It's (almost) not a joke, but the cheapest and faster solution.

leye0
  • 281
  • 1
  • 8
13

The one sensible solution I think will be to:

  • setup modern computer (with at least 2 processor cores) with some long-support Linux distribution (CentOS/RHEL/Ubuntu LTS);

  • setup a virtual machine there - setup it so it only can connect to your bandsaw (I don't know how it is connected - I suppose for example with serial connection -serial /dev/ttyS0 option of qemu should help, -net none option would disable network);

  • install Windows 3.1 to this virtual machine and move bandsaw software there.

You'll have modern secure system and browser for timeclock software and insecure but isolated from Internet system for bandsaw.

This is even better than leaving current setup - a 15 years old computer will break rather sooner than later and you'll have no means of replacing it. Moving virtual machine to another computer is almost as simple as moving a disk image file.

Tometzky
  • 486
  • 3
  • 15
  • 8
    Won't work -- you will badly screw up the timing of the bandsaw control. The most likely reason for the Win3.1 requirement for the existing software is that it installs its own interrupt handlers in order to get real-time operation. That isn't possible on modern OSes which run applications unprivileged, and while a VM can emulate it, the interrupt latency will be greater and much much much more unpredictable. – Ben Voigt May 11 '12 at 23:04
  • On modern Linux you can setup a virtual machine process for real-time scheduling using `chrt --fifo qemu ...`. Also modern system will be hundreds times faster than 15-year-old one. I don't think there will be a problem with too slow reaction times. – Tometzky May 12 '12 at 16:37
  • 4
    Interrupt handlers are much faster than even real-time scheduled processes. Also, too fast a reaction may be just as big a problem as too slow. I don't see any way to avoid unpredictability of response latency when using a VM. – Ben Voigt May 12 '12 at 17:07
6

I would assume your best bet is to go with a Microsoft product on this one. The last compatible Internet Explorer release seems to be 5.01.

OldApps has a realy nice list of latest released versions for the given platforms. However, contrary to that table, 5.01 is listed for Windows 3.1 as well.

Operating System        Latest Software Version
Windows 3.1             Internet Explorer 3.01 (Windows 3.1)
Windows 95              Internet Explorer 5.0
Windows 98              Internet Explorer 6.0 (Setup Only)
Windows 2000            Internet Explorer 6.0 (Setup Only)
Windows ME              Internet Explorer 6.0 (Setup Only)
Windows Server 2003 x64 Internet Explorer 7.0 (x64)
Windows Server 2003     Internet Explorer 7.0 (Final)
Windows XP x64          Internet Explorer 8.0 (XP x64)
Windows XP              Internet Explorer 8.0 (XP)
Windows Vista x64       Internet Explorer 9.0 (Vista)
Windows Vista           Internet Explorer 9.0 (Vista x64)
Windows 7 x64           Internet Explorer 9.0 (7 x64)
Windows 7               Internet Explorer 9.0 (7)
Oliver Salzburg
  • 86,445
  • 63
  • 260
  • 306
  • This page shows IE 5.1 for windows 3.1....http://www.oldapps.com/internet_explorer.php – Moab May 10 '12 at 21:46
  • @Moab: You're right. Weird. I added a note to the answer. – Oliver Salzburg May 10 '12 at 21:49
  • 2
    This information is incorrect, since there was an Internet Explorer 5.01 for Windows 3.1x. While I agree that Internet Explorer 5.01 would be a better choice than Netscape 4, Opera 3.62 will still have much better CSS and HTML support, if I remember correctly. – Gurken Papst May 10 '12 at 21:52
  • @GurkenPapst: My thought was that it might be best to use a Microsoft product considering what task the computer is primarily used for. I still find the whole thing rather questionable. – Oliver Salzburg May 10 '12 at 22:16
4

This is actually a situation that OS2 had been used for years specifically to address.

It's obviously a lot more destructive then just installing a browser... but it is both capable of running Windows 3.1 software in addition to more modern software like Firefox 3.6.

Lori
  • 41
  • 1
3

There are none, at least with support for recent technologies (except for very basic CSS, JavaScript etc...).

Maybe you will have better luck with IE 5, but even then you are pretty cramped.

Renan
  • 7,981
  • 4
  • 39
  • 48
3

Here's what I would do:

Develop a web app interface legacy compliant running in a modern PC so the 3.11 machine can connect to the actual website through it, like a proxy-translator thing. It shouldn't be very difficult, just forward the input and translate the output.

OR

Buy 1 host PC and set up 2 virtual machines: One with 3.11 connected to the controller, another connected to the network with an updated browser and OS. Total price, about 200USD?

If VM can't handle the controller device, I suggest that you use a new computer for accessing the network, since old software connected to a network is a huge security flaw.

NotGaeL
  • 567
  • 1
  • 9
  • 18
  • 6
    Custom hardware, limb-maiming controllers, and virtual machines. Will not work. If it will work, it won't work reliably. If it will work in a way that seems reliable, in case of any accident the insurance company will not pay, stating it isn't a reliable setup. – ZJR May 13 '12 at 13:33
  • You're right, virtualization is not ultra reliable in every context, but in case that's a problem I gave an alternative to that. I updated my answer to consider a third, more time consuming solution also involving 2 PCs. – NotGaeL May 13 '12 at 16:55
3

I would consider running screen sharing software. After doing some research, it sounds like VNC was never ported to Windows 3.1, but you could try running pcAnywhere 9.2, which I believe is the last version that supports Windows 3.1. I think the most important thing is to only run stable software on this machine, as there is no memory protection, no bug fixes in many years, and it's controlling an expensive and dangerous piece of equipment. You can find another thread which discusses browser alternatives for Windows 3.1 here. They seem to think that Opera is a bit unstable, and other browsers probably don't support all of the modern CSS that you need.

Martin Hock
  • 131
  • 1
2

Short answer... no.

developers stopped developing software for Windows 3.1 a long, long time ago.

wizlog
  • 13,277
  • 24
  • 77
  • 116
2

You should build a simple script which screenscrapes the original modern web app and exposes it in a simplified view accessible by the browsers from 1994.

MK01
  • 151
  • 7
1

K-Meleon may work. It works on many old systems. Small and nimble.

Nate Koppenhaver
  • 3,641
  • 4
  • 33
  • 56
Joe
  • 184
  • 1
  • It's faq says win32; which isn't surprising. There were major architecture changes going from Win16 to Win32; it's not like the more recent 32-64bit transition which (for well written) code required little more than flipping a compiler switch. http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/wiki/FAQ#platforms – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight May 18 '12 at 12:43
  • 1
    @Dan - as others have mentioned, 32 bit code can be run on Windows 3.1 using win32s. As far as I remember, a pretty big subset of the win32 API was supported. –  Jun 15 '12 at 15:48
  • @Steve314 many of the APIs being capable of being grafted onto win16 isn't surprising, since in many cases the only changes needed would be changing the default int from 16 to 32 bits in length. At deeper levels the change from win16 applications cooperatively sharing a single process/thread among the OS and all applications and win32 using process isolation and preemptive scheduling is a massive shift for complex applications. As they steadily race towards doing everything that an OS does, browsers have become among the most complex applications in existence. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Jun 16 '12 at 11:02