> plus it's lossless

Only if you define the vinyl copy to be the primary one, in which case vinyl is lossless by definition. However, if you take a live performance to be primary, vinyl is lossy because it has a reduced dynamic range compared to both live performances and digital technologies.

http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl%29

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146697658/why-vinyl-sounds-bet...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-future-of-mu...

On the other other hand, Windows 3.1 has some upsides. Running Windows 3.1 is an experience, plus it's on DOS, and having a Windows 3.1 install on your laptop is cool/makes good art/conversations pieces. Vinyl would be interesting to listen to once or twice to show off to your friends, but it'd be more like something you'd set up once to see how it used to be done, then you'd go back to an iPod. Windows 3.1 is an experience, vinyl is a novelty.

I think the closest equivalent to the claim that vinyl is lossless would be that Windows 3.1 is efficient. Well... sure... if you squint hard enough and tune the definition of lossless/efficient properly, sure... but not in an actually relevant manner.

Windows 3.1 is on DOS, so it is lossless. There's no intermediary between any program and any other program. Everything runs in pure, unadulterated Ring 0, raw, unprocessed 16 bits.

It doesn't actually make any sense your way, though.

That can be your opinion, but computer usage is a subjective experience and I'm entitled to my opinion as well. I find Windows 3.1 to be a superior computing experience; it has a charm and novelty about it that later Windows versions haven't been able to duplicate. I find the experience richer and more satisfying. Also, I like having to restart my computer and swap out physical floppy disks -- the tactile sensation and sound of disk access is much more pleasing than modern, silent, sterile SSDs.

Your contributions to this thread have been my favorite moments in HN for the past two weeks. Thank you.

You're quite welcome. It was great to have an opportunity to evangelize a subject quite near and dear to me, namely Windows 3.1. Hopefully my comments motivate you to try it out sometime, or do a "bind use test" between it and a modern OS like say Windows 7.

Installing to a VM as we speak. I plan to compare it to a copy of Yggdrasil Linux I'm installing simultaneously

While you are obviously exceedingly clever, you're funny inversion is BS. Vinyl isn't a novelty. It is a small but non-negligible market. In my anecdotal experience, myself and my friends have had record players and have been listening to and buying records for years. The "market" for Windows 3.1 machines in 2015 is microscopic and completely negligible.

> Listening to a Vinyl is an experience, plus it's lossless

Nope, your record loses information every time you play it, because you're literally rubbing a needle over those tiny little grooves.

Not lossless then. High quality? IDK. I thought there was something.

It is not even that, just some people like the "errors" in the playback. They say it makes it sound warmer.

In terms of accuracy of reproduction, vinyl is just simply not going to do better than a CD.

The audiophile community may disagree, but read some of their reviews and articles and you'll see how reliable their analyses are.

Vinyl is absolutely not lossless, there's the crackle and hiss, not to mention the fact that the needle digs into the surface as it's played.

I would argue that the vinyl "revolution" is more about the actual qualities of the sound produced vs. digital media than simple nostalgia.