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)
looking at all of them one thing really
strikes you, win95 was quite a leap.
till then it really was not close to
a usable desktop. win95 was the racehorse...
If you have your old copy of Windows 95 System Programming Secrets (1995, Matt Pietrek) handy, he has some examples of how those pesky Int 21 calls (DOS services) are still thunked down to that crappy old DOS layer, instead of being completely handled in the kernal, as in WinNT. If there was truely no DOS, there would be no thunking, no crappy DOS layer, and no MSDOS.SYS/IO.SYS/COMMAND.COM garbage.
Microsoft's marketing machine tried (and mostly managed) to convince the world that 'DOS is dead' with this version of Windows. Rumor has it that BillG got totally hacked off by an Apple commerical that compared booting a Mac with booting a WIntel box, and told his minions that the next version (95) better boot right to Windows.
Yeah, right.
The first time I was introduced to Windows, I was using a Tandy 1000RLX. For those of you who didn't follow the history of Tandy's 1000 series, it basically started with the original 1000 and went something like this... RGEG@#3t232tG@#g@#G23#%#@^!@^grsg
Yea, that's about as much sense as it made - the 1000 moniker was absolutely useless for determining what kind of system it was. So anyway, as it turns out, the 1000RLX was an XT-286. Yep, while other 286s had a 16-bit bus and 16-bit ISA slots... My crappy Tandy didn't. What it did have was a 10MHz AMD 286 chip on an 8-bit bus with 256k VGA graphics, 1MB of RAM, a 1.44MB floppy drive and an XT-IDE 40MB hard drive. It also had one 8-bit ISA slot that I decided to cram a 2400bps modem into.
So anyway, I certainly didn't have the hardware for Windows 3.0 and while I don't remember the exact date, I do remember Windows 3.1 was just about to come out in a few months... So it was back in the day. I got ahold of a copy of Windows 3.0 and installed it on that Tandy and guess what - my mouse didn't work.
I called tech support (you could actually reach a live person back in the day!) for the Tandy computer... They kinda wondered where I got a copy of Windows from (since the computer didn't come with it, it came with Tandy's Deskmate) but instead of telling me "No, we don't support operating systems that didn't come bundled... blah blah blah" like you'd expect to hear today - they were actually helpful and explained that this XT-286 had the PS/2 mouse port on a non standard IRQ and I'd need to get a serial mouse.
To make a long story longer, I waited awhile for 3.1 to be released and ended up pawning off the computer on my father and convinced him to buy me a Tandy 2500SX/25 instead... So not only could I run the new Windows 3.1 with a mouse, I also could run it in 386 protected mode with a whopping 2MB of ram and an 80MB hard drive. From what I remember of Windows 3.1, it was always very slow and it seemed to crash a lot and every few weeks or so it managed to crash badly enough to corrupt itself. Blue screens nowadays make me feel all nolstalgic.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I know you said Flamebait, but what the heck. The full distro of Windows that you talk of, does NOT include the apps, which are part of these other distro. Many otherr full-distros come in a single floppy! And some of these can read Windows files as well..
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
This is the first time I actually noticed the dates on all this software.
Back in the late-eighties/early-nineties I only knew Macs. I had family that worked at Apple so I had access to a lot of stuff. I finally moved over to a PC in 1998, when I got tired of connecting to shell accounts and wanted to get my own unix machine.
Anyway, I can't believe the dates here. I always assumed that Windows 3.1 came out in 87/88, what with the horrible interface and lack of features. I remember playing with a Mac 128k in 1985 that worked better than 3.1, minus the color.
It really makes me wonder what they were thinking at Apple back then, making the machines so expensive rather than trying to take over the market when they had such a lead. It boggles the mind.
[insert witty quote here]
Warp 4 was released in 1996 - any copying (window close buttons, start menu, taskbar, etc) was by OS/2 off Win95 (for which MS copied of many other products as well, but Win95 was before Warp4)
Warp3 was more Win3.x-ish.
You must be kidding right. I only wish I had a version installed so I could show a screenshot.
Warp 4 certainly had many design elements of Windows 95, but they were ONLY a start bar type fthing and the X buttons. Those features were available years before in circa 1993 as freeware add-ons. Checkout Filebar and NPS WPS enhancer, from which MS primarily ripped their design concepts.
Many of the core ways that OS/2 worked were ripped from OS/2. A consistently gray GUI provided a much better look and was easier on the eyes. Buttons and bars had the "chiseled" look. MS even ripped the dark green background of OS/2 Warp 3.0. IBM did a whole study and determined that color calms humans better than any other. Lets not forget the absolutely revolutionary tabbed properties dialogue boxes.
OS/2 always had a desktop since 1992, three years before Windows 95. There was no true desktop in Windows prior to 1995.
In reality, the Macintosh had many of these features first. It was always striking how Windows 95 looked so incredibly similar to OS/2 Warp 3. They could easily have incorporated many of the design elements but still have created a unique look.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
It must not be taken out of context
I had Gem on my 8088 (512K, 30Mb HDD) and had a funky graphics card that would do CGA hi-res in 16 colours. So Gem was nice and colourful (though fixed windows, unlike atari Gem).
With first Word Plus and Timeworks DTP, the machine was excellent for doing schoolwork and stuff.
Now this PC I got also came with 2 operating systems, MS-DOS 3.2 and DOS Plus - Due to software compatibility, I tended to use MS-DOS, dos plus was slightly more memory hungry. I made the choice to use MS-DOS because it *was* a better operating system.
I remember windows 2 coming out and being quite excited - I remember starting it up - waiting ages - running in monochrome (it didn't support my weird graphics card) and played othello for about 30 minutes and then uninstalled it. My opinion: windows is a flop. (DOS is still good though!)
I used Windows 3.0 on some machine or other (not mine) and thought that it was a big improvement on 2.0.
I then got my 486 (33MHz w/ 8mb ram) with windows 3.1 installed! Oh-My-God it was *so* good, people talk about the shortcomings, but they either didn't use win3.1 or didn't have powerful enough machines to appreciate it properly.
There were 1 million hacks available for win3.1 to do whatever you wanted (icons on the desktop etc.) and it was skinnable too.
The underlying technology didn't really matter to me, I still played my DOS games in DOS and ran windows when I wanted to do something like use Word - remember word 2 folks? It's almost the same as the current word that we use today - all the elements were in place and it took first place on my machine.
I played with a couple of linux distros around that time or just after (Slackware and a thing called mini-linux that I've never found any references to again). But they just couldn't compete for a desktop experience for me and they didn't run doom!
Nowadays I run mandrake linux on my pc and debian (knoppix) on my laptop because I feel it's time has come.
Look on those old windows shots with the pleasant nostalgia they are intended to invoke. Suppress the anti-M$ urge on this one!
So XP professional (NT 5.1 as it identifies itself) wasn't meant to replace 2000 Professional (NT 5)? And I suppose 2003 won't replace the 2000 server versions.....
Silly remark indeed.
Not a silly remark at all. Microsoft is not aggresively selling Windows XP as a replacement to Windows 2000. Rather they are selling it as the upgrade path to the consumer line (which is the 9x series, Windows ME) and as an upgrade to Windows NT 4.0. If you wanted to upgrade Windows 2000 to Windows XP Microsoft won't stop you but it's not the market that they are aggressively seeking.
Likewise Windows 2003 Server is not being touted as a serious upgrade to Windows 2000 Server. A good deal of the enhancements to Windows 2003 Server specifically address concerns when upgrading from Windows NT 4.0. Microsoft is not pushing this server heavily as a replacement to Windows 2000 Server.