>>56334910>1.0 and 1.1 are deprecatedYes. Programming in assembly is considered obsolete as well, but I still do it.
As I'm writing this, I'm beginning to realize there was a completely obvious solution that didn't require us to go into KernelEx: TLS can be made dependent on the browser. Vista lacks both 1.1 and 1.2, but there is Chromium forked browser that supports TLS 1.3. Qihu's 360 Extreme Explorer for Windows Vista does this.
Speaking of Japan and Qihu, China's also running on ridiculously out of date software. Flash is still commonly used within China, even on totally new systems. It's similar in India. As it turns out, Asia in general doesn't run modern systems.
>That does not mean that 95 is basically an upgraded 3.1Your arguments for this are very flimsy. I'm also tired of this round about circle. How about you look at an early build, like build 58s, which literally includes a number of Windows 3.1 programs, such as its setup program.
Actually, while we're here so we can cut this off too, Windows 95 is built on top of 3.11, but that's semantics.
>device driversYeah, because the model did change somewhat. It's the same reason why Windows 98 and ME don't have compatible drivers, despite the fact that they're barely removed from each other. FUCK, you can even install Windows 3.11 drivers on Windows 95, despite the incompatibility, VERY closely mirroring how Windows 98 drivers can be installed on Windows ME and Windows XP drivers can be installed on Vista(which led to its infamous instability on both latter OSes!)
>this argument that people are using XP en-masshttps://archive.org/details/windows_20th_anniversary_packageWhy in the actual fuck would this release if there wasn't a proper market then? Microsoft is NOTORIOUSLY STINGY, they don't like making moves that don't make money, even if they're incredible PR moves. They fucked over IBM for gods sake!
The only exception is Xbox, where they are apparently allergic to money. 
