Geeks tend to like adages, particularly ones that seem to be true. For example, every odd numbered Star Trek film is rubbish, something which held true until the current version came out. Similarly, every odd numbered James Bond film was dire (David Niven, George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton) until Daniel Craig came along.

Microsoft's DOS had a similar pattern, in that you never buy an even numbered DOS product. DOS 2 was rubbish, DOS 4 laden with bugs, and while DOS 6 was actually rather good, it was very much an interim attempt until Windows came along.

But for me DOS 5 was the pinnacle of command line computing from Microsoft. It was a lean, mean operating system and would respect the geek using it. Even after Windows 95 came out I'd still resort to the DOS framework if things went wrong. That said, the message 'Data error reading Drive C' still makes me flinch.

Shaun Nichols: These days command-line interfaces are stuff of IT admins and hardcore power users. The overwhelming majority of users exist in worlds far insulated from the command line layer. There are, however, some instances in which command lines can be of great use, and once in a while I do get nostalgic for a time when you could simply type in a command rather than click through endless layers of dialogue boxes and fields of folders.

To that end, DOS 5 was a decent system. At a time when pretty visuals and shimmery icons were far removed from operating a computer, it provided a great way for users to navigate their systems without tons of errors or needless confirmation messages.

The transition from command-line to GUI systems didn't happen overnight either. Many users preferred the no-nonsense styling of DOS to early incarnations of Windows, and as recently as Windows 98 I remember friends who would often prefer to use the command line rather than wade through the clumsy graphical interface.

Windows 3.1 had the advantage of hitting the market just as home computers were really beginning to pick up steam, and for a number of reasons it became the dominant operating system until it was eventually succeeded by Windows 95.

Though it handed the reins to the PC market over to later versions of Windows, 3.11 remained present in much of the market as an embedded system. To this day, one can still find isolated embedded systems and consoles that still use it. Fifteen years is an age in computer terms, and Windows 3.1 has shown amazing longevity.

Iain Thomson: Apple users will tell you that Windows 3.1 was little more than a crippled version of what they had been using for years, and they are right.

Nevertheless it was still many people's first entry into the GUI style of computing and as such deserves recognition. We all stifled smirks when Microsoft's PRs went on and on about how advanced it was, but for the vast majority of PC users it finally got rid of many of the faults that had held them back.

It's amazing, but you can still find computers today that run Windows 3.1. This is because it works, has very low hardware requirements by today's stand ards and is rather stable as operating systems go. Sure, don't expect USB support (even Windows 95 didn't have that at first) or anything fancy, but there are still a few back-end operations where you can see the familiar clunky interface and embarrassingly bad graphics that were the hallmark of Windows 3. 1.