Slashdot Mirror
Screenshot History of Windows
jobugeek writes "Neowin has an article that shows the progression of Microsoft Windows from pre-windows 1.0 through the 2003 server. For those of you who have used all of them, I'm sorry."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
He had a 2 from karma bonus and got modded down to 1.
How he got that karma in the first place is anybody's guess, though.
First, many of the screens from the article appear to have been taken from The GUI Gallery, which is kinda lame since it's basically just a copy of that site anyway. The author even says that he "picked them up" from the internet. :P
And second, wasn't this posted here like a week ago?
From the Netcraft link:
mod_bwlimited/1.0 PHP/4.3.1
Looks like it's working perfectly. They probably have to pay through the nose to their hosting company if throughput exceeds some arbitrary limit.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
Didn't see your comment, so I posted below.
The screens are from The GUI Gallery, and the author even says he "picked them up" from the net.
You can read the official M$ story of the windows history at microsoft.com :)
including horrible coloured screenshots
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I doubt you have the full thing then, win 1.0 came on 3 360k floppies, and I doubt it'd compress to 22%.
here
the "skip to page number" at bottom of pages don't work - you'll need to hit back on your browser
Here's a Windows Timeline list of each MS OS and its date. Also, includes the current future OS'.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Actually, if you go to start->run->services.msc and enable the Themes service then reboot, it lets you select the luna themes again.
;)
Just when you thought m$ cut down on the bloat, you find out it's still there
This article seems to have some inaccuracies.
Namely that versions of Windows before Win95 didn't fully support the 386 (dunno 'bout NT, never used it), despite what the article claims, still had worthless (and error-prone) cooperative multi-tasking, nor did they have anything resembling a 32-bit filesystem. FAT32, Microsoft's 32-bit file system, didn't come along until Windows 95; prior to that they had FAT16.
Additionally, starting with the 286 you could have more than 640k of RAM. The 286, IIRC, had a 24-bit address space and could therefor address up to 16 megabytes when running in 16-bit protected mode, but even in its protected mode still suffered from the horrid segmentation model that so annoyed programmers writing software for Intel's earlier x86 CPUs. Intel's poor segmentation system didn't become a thing of the past (or at least something you could ignore) until the 386 and its 32-bit protected mode.
"For the time it was high-end. Nobody had 256 color displays, you were getting 'high end' EGA cards with 32 colors, and 256 colors was available for several thousand bucks. Your high-end machines were 32-bit and aproaching 33 Mhz, with 32-mb of disk space and, if you were rich, had 16 MB of RAM. A more common scenario was a 16-bit machine with a 20-mb hard disk, 12 or 16 Mhz, and up 2 MB of ram"
Some of us were using AmigaDOS or RISC OS and had 32bit machines, thousands or millions of colours and decent sound support all for a reasonable price. 80's PCs were crap!
Here's the contents of the disks I've got:
Windows 1.01 (files dated November 1985) - 5 360K floppies - 1,598K
Windows 2.03 (November 1987) - 9 360K floppies - 3,540K
Windows 3.0 (October 1990) - 7 720K floppies - 5,423K
Windows for Workgroups v3.11 (November 1993) - 8 1.44MB floppies - 12,215K
Windows 95 v4.00.950 (July 1995) - 34,621K
Windows 95 v4.00.950B (May 1997) - 45,169K
That's true, but for the time it was the right thing.
Neither DOS nor Windows 9x were ever "the right thing". We are talking mid-90's here. UNIX was more than 20 years old, people were using 3D user interfaces on SGIs, you could get Sun workstations for $2000, Smalltalk was nearly two decades old. You could even get better open source 16bit operating systems at the time.
Windows 9x was purely a way of squeezing lots of money out of a pathetic architecture that was obsolete before it even shipped.
Also, Win95 had lots of 16-bit code inherited from Win 3.1, and it thunked into that a lot. Again, this contributed to the small size.
I think calling Windows 95 "small" represents a seriously distorted world view. You could run UNIX and X11 in less memory and with less CPU power than Windows 95. Except relative to other Windows versions, Windows 95 was a dog, and a seriously ill one at that.
Your statements are not based on fact.
Of course you can talk about differences between the two, but not about changes, as 2000 wasn't changed into XP.
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
I installed Win2k on an AMD K6-2/300. Fairly straightforward outside of a bazillion reboots. Then I installed RedHat 7.2 on it. Fairly straightforward without all of the reboots. I didn't have to muck with the kernel, etc., although the Win2k box didn't want to work with my Voodoo card - I had to hunt down updated drivers and then go through this screwy driver update system that slapped me back & forth between 640x400 VGA/16 color & the 3dFX driver.
Anyway, I recently upgraded the motherboard to an Intel board with a P4 2+GHz. Win2k completely barfed. I thought I had a config problem somewhere so I booted to Linux. No problems.
I did a bunch of digging around on google groups (using my Mac - which is by far easier than Linux or Windows) and found that I needed to:
1) Boot from the Win2k install CD.
2) When it asks me if I wanted to install or repair, choose REPAIR (what kind've brain damage is that?)
3) When it trys to install, it will detect an existing system and then ask me if I want to repair. NOW choose repair.
4) Four reboots & 45 minutes later (after spending 3 hours dicking with it), I'm up & running again.
Now I don't call that a superior system. That just plain sucked.
I would suggeset giving a recent RedHat install (or ask around for something better) a try. You might be surprised...
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the
It used preemptive multitasking for MS-DOS apps, because there would be no other way. For everything else, though, it did cooperative multitasking.
Yes, indeed. There is a good chance that without Microsoft or Intel, the computers we sit at today would have better processors, better programming environments, better usability, and better end-user software. Microsoft and Windows have held back the industry and technology by at least a decade.
the wintel alliance has brought us a revolution in computing power, that those 20 years of unix failed to deliver even slightly.
That is clearly completely false. Even without anywhere near the sales volume of Wintel machines, in the early 1990's, Sun was selling $2000 SPARC workstations, including high resolution monitors, without any Wintel components at all. That included a full 32bit operating system, a decent window system, and full networking. The only thing that was missing was desktop application software. Imagine how much more the non-Microsoft vendors would have been able to do if they could have gotten their volumes up.
Microsoft clearly has their act together on the business side, but in terms of technology, they have been an unmitigated disaster for the technology industry.
Your problem about keyboard mapping was just answered this month in Sys Admin Magazine. Check out the first Q&A here.
You might also check out the Customizing Mozilla page at Mozilla.org.
True that, if win2k goes down on me it just reboots.
Actually you're getting a blue screen, but Win2k defaults to "Reboot Automatically" in the event of a blue screen error. This is bad, in my opinion; I lost a system (had to reinstall) over a problem I never did figure out.
Microsoft's solution? Install another copy of Win2k to a different partition or folder, hack the old Win2k registry to disable the auto-reboot feature. I just reinstalled...
Ever since, that's the first thing I do: disable auto-reboot (System Properties -> Advanced -> Startup and Recovery).
I did recently have a blue screen. I plugged into my laptop, of all things, a monitor. An analog monitor. Got a blue screen. I had to boot safe mode, uninstall the video driver, and it just fixed itself (how the hell do you run a headless Windows server if it won't even boot without a video driver?)
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
Good idea. I periodically copy my 'work' directory to CD-Rw for short term backup purposes. (I also us CD-R for long term backups.) This has saved me at least once as well.
[flamebait]Since noone here really knows anything about Windows[/flamebait], I'd better answer this one -- on the contrary my friend, you _do_ have several logs of the event (details for default install of win2000):
:)
- An event notification in the NT Event Log
- A carbon copy of the bluescreen data at C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\DrWatson\
- System crash dump (choice of small/kernel/complete) at %systemroot%\memory.dmp
- user process space dump at C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\DrWatson\user.dmp
Run drwtsn32.exe to see some of these options, additionally, right-click my computer, advanced tab, startup and recovery options.
Additionally, Windows does not have "automatically reboot" enabled by default. Either you or your administrator chose to enable that behaviour.
Enough of the "bah, windows 2000 doesn't do this, nor that" banter. RTFM (yes, I know there is no manual, F1 it mate) or, ATFM "ask the f*ing adminstrator".
- Oisin
PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
AT&T licensed Unix to OEMs and Microsoft decided to be one of them.
Bill was a Xenix evangelist, even putting it on the desks of the secretaries if the stories are true.
See here
and here
A Snippet of his 1996 speech at Unix Expo
One of the exciting things we're announcing today is that our commitment to the Internet and to building a state-of-the-art browser extends not only to Windows 95 and Windows NT, but also to 16-bit Windows and the Macintosh and to Unix. And so, working with some partners, we've created Internet Explorer 3.0, and that's our latest, with all the active control capabilities on several Unix platforms.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Okay, here's one for you.
We have about 20 users at a time on Windows 2000 Terminal Services. The server was randomly rebooting.
No event in the event log (other than the "previous shutdown was unexpected")
Nothing dumped in Doctor Watson directory.
No dump file was being created.
Dell couldn't solve the problem (nothing in the onboard diagnostics for their hardware). Nothing on memory tests showing up errant.
Microsoft couldn't solve the problem.
Eventually (after nearly 8 months) we discovered that it was a session of Photoshop that would do it. No blue screen, no warning, nothing. It would just trigger a reboot.
It was actually happening on four identically configured servers, so it wasn't "just a hardware problem".
Windows blue screens becoming extinct, my arse...
IIRC the difference is that B has Internet Explorer, the quicklaunch bar and support for user toolbars on the desktop. Not sure about any changes in the back-end of it though.
It's not my fault - greatness was thrust upon me.
Of course it can. You just implement it without any windows boxes, and you're fine.
funny, we have a few XP machines at work (most are '95) .. the XP machines crash at least 3 times a day, and all they do is run Flash presentations all day long. The '95 boxes that are used as our cash registers have uptimes of months...
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Actually, you're forgetting some of the most important aspects that Windows 95 brought to the world.
Plug 'n Play - Nod to OS/2 for having the same feature, but Win95 is responsible for bringing it to the masses. There were, as expected, a few bugs, but in most cases the hardware was properly detected and configured without the user lifting a finger. Think of Win95 as the working, but basic PnP, whereas Windows 2k / XP with ACPI are the best it ever needs to be.
Built-in easy networking (IPX/TCP/Etc.) -
Come on folks. Linux was a pain in the ass for years to configure to talk to anything, unless you already knew how. In Windows, it was as simple as opening an applet, and selecting the protocol / service. Better still, most Dialup / Network adapters AUTOMATICALLY installed the protocols and services you needed, so no user interaction necessary.
No, it wasn't perfect. But time doesn't stand still, and in terms of features Win95 was an excellent starting point for things to come. Both features mentioned above ( simple networking, PnP ) have been nearly perfected in 2k/XP.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
We dont need no stinking screenshotz!!!
Sierra Madre reference...
I run a school in Japan and have these installed and running as I speak... er type
English 3.1
Japanese 3.1
English 95
Japanese 95
English 98
Japanese 98
Japanese ME
English XP
Japanese XP
tadaaaaH An amalgam of the eclectic...
95 is the least stable
3.1 (on top of DOS) is a rock!!! It has been running on three machines without a hitch for over 10 years. NEVER reinstalled.
98 is much more stable than 95
XP appears daunting to reinstall, but has caused few problems yet.
Students can do work with all of the systems because I have the software for all this too... old stuff on old systems.... you know...
Anyone noticed that applications are getting worse?
BTW all versions are fully licensed. It is worth it.
"B" (aka OSR2) has USB support, as well as major bugfixes.
The "B" release added USB and FAT32 file system support. I think IE3 was added as well. There was also an "A" version which is what you got when a service pack was applied to the original release, so those changes would have been in "B" too.