Exactly.

Who could imagine Apple would eventually inherit Sun’s crown as the king of the RISC unix workstation?

3.1 was still nice compared to its main competitor, which was MacOS 7. Only the richest kids would be running things like Solaris, SCO, and other preemptive multitasking systems because memory demands were high and memory was very expensive.

Also, Windows 3 would run on 286 computers (as would OS/2), which made the barrier of entry very low. I started running it on a 286 with a Hercules adapter.

> No one bothered to try programming under Windows 3.1!

VB and Windows 3.11 paid for my first home. I wouldn’t enjoy programming in C in Windows though, and, IIRC, it was a while before Microsoft’s C tooling got a Windows version.

Agreed. This was, so far, my worst experience with liberation of locked down machines. It’s fun that it scaled to that many units.

If you want faster, anything running on a Cerebras machine will do.

Never tried it for much coding though.

In fact, the thin client that drives my desk at [company] runs Linux with the Citrix client to connect to a VDI that exists somewhere in a datacenter we own, because regulations.

Interesting to note that, At 1.2 TiB/s memory bandwidth, it has twice as much bandwidth as an M5 Max chip from Apple. In the unlikely event Apple decides to make an M5 Ultra, it'll have the same memory bandwidth.

Of course, all the other metrics are well below this monster.

> it would be like using an old-school Cray

I'd totally do that as well. Don't judge me. ;-)

I have zero idea of what I'd do with it except programming in Python and doing my e-mail and browsing, but I would still love to have one under my desk.