Slashdot Mirror


The Secret Origin of Windows

harrymcc writes "Windows has been so dominant for so long that it's easy to forget Windows 1.0 was vaporware, mocked both outside and inside of Microsoft — and that its immediate successors were considered stopgaps until OS/2 was everywhere. Tandy Trower, the product manager who finally got Windows 1.0 out the door a quarter century ago, has written a memoir of the experience. (He thought being assigned the much-maligned project was Microsoft's fiendish way of trying to get rid of him.) The story involves such still-significant figures as Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Ray Ozzie, and Nathan Myhrvold; Trower left Microsoft only in November of 2009 after 28 years with the company."

18 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. To be fair... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Funny

    they also had Ballmer doing crazy commercials at that time. It was destined to do badly.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk

    1. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That video was made in what, 1985? And Windows sold for $99 according to the ad.

      Today, Windows 7 (NOT AN UPGRADE) goes for $178.54 on Amazon and lists for $199. According to the Minneapolis Fed, $99 in 1985 is worth $200.21 in 2010 - in other Words, inflation adjusted, Microsoft hasn't raised the price of Windows. And if you include all of the programs that are included with Windows 7 that you would normally have had to have purchased separately back in '85 (compression, file management, image viewers, etc, etc...) Windows has gone down dramatically. Now, they've been labeled a monopoly in court, but they're pricing isn't that of a monopolist. Actually, they've given the consumer a really nice value.

      Now, cue the MS haters who are going to accuse me of being an "apologist" and for being a "revisionist". Whatever. I just think it's an interesting micro economic case study.

      BTW, get a life.

    2. Re:To be fair... by headkase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Economists until very recently denied that the factor called "lock-in" even existed. Yes, a bunch of old stuffies insisting that what they say is the way the world works even when they miss some big pieces. I wish I could find the quote which showed that attitude however Google is now polluted so much with the phrase "lock-in" that it's all noise searching for when it wasn't that way. Left field: My operating system is Free, if everyone saw that obvious value and weren't tied to existing applications and data they'd all jump ship immediately and by doing so would also immediately raise my operating system's quality of code to amazing levels: just because of the weight of bug reports and new blood of code.

      --
      Shh.
    3. Re:To be fair... by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And if you include all of the programs that are included with Windows 7 that you would normally have had to have purchased separately back in '85 (compression, file management, image viewers, etc, etc...) Windows has gone down dramatically.

      Especially because back then, you still needed MS-DOS to run underneath Windows.

    4. Re:To be fair... by headkase · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cathedral and Bazaar time. What you trade off in speed of development with the bazaar you gain in robustness from Cathedral top-down error. It takes longer but you are less likely to run into an evolutionary dead-end from well-intentioned global decisions. Which is why it is good that FreeBSD kernels exist in addtion to Linux ones and perhaps when Hurd becomes reality that will be genetic diversity as well. No single cause can kill them all.

      --
      Shh.
    5. Re:To be fair... by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Informative

      Software should gain new features with each version. The addditional functionality of the OS should be a given over the years.

      I'll give you that they aren't jacking the price of the Home version given the price in 1985, but have you seen their Enterprise Server pricing model?

      Let's say you're a small business that needs 25 seats.

      You pay for a server license for your domain controller, and a server license for a backup domain controller. Since you're a small shop, that is also the box you run Exchange off of. For both Windows Server and Exchange, you need CALs in addition to the server licenses.

      Then each end user basically needs a SEPERATE client license from the CAL, since their individual desktop OSes need a license, and for email, they need Outlook licenses.

      Shouldn't the server CAL effectively be the same thing as the client software license? They're double-dipping on what is already a very expensive license.

      Home users pirate Windows en-masse, or get it pre-installed with their computer via a cheap OEM license bundled in. Microsoft makes their money on enterprise licensing, where they do jack their prices.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:To be fair... by obarthelemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      to be REALLY fair, windows 7's market is bigger than Windows 1.0's was.1985 = 30 million PCs, 2007 = 1 billion PCs . Since costs are fairly fixed (dev accounts for a lot, DVD+packaging for almost nothing), we could expect the price to be $200 x 30 / 1,000 = $6, assuming stable dev costs, which they obviously weren't quite... but that raw calculation is no dumber than yours... actually may be a bit smarter .

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    7. Re:To be fair... by zennyboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think people mainly think of as % of a complete PC. PC then? $3-5000? Windows $99. Do the maths... Now, PC=£400 (dunno in $). Windows=$200... NOW do the maths...

    8. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do the maths? Only one math is needed, a single division, and that's not really a math at all, just an arithmetic.

  2. I still have a copy... by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...of Windows 1.02 (or was it 1.12) on 720k, 3.5" floppy. And no, I never used it - DOS was king and there were better file management programs at the time (which is all Win was at that point, iirc).

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  3. Re:Isn't it still vaporware? by calibre-not-output · · Score: 4, Funny

    Actually the product's quality has declined quite a bit since the golden days of Windows 1.0 - now it's bloated vaporware. No wonder they've decided to invest in the cloud.

    --
    Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
  4. Oi woz there by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember the feeble beginnings of Windows quite well. I started purchasing Windows with 1.04, and started using it with 3.0.

    I used to list "Windows 1.0 - [current version]" on the skills section of my resume, but too many interviewers thought I was joking, because they'd never heard of such a thing (and it started making me look like I might be over 30). One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  5. ancient history by Speare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This brings back memories for me, too. I got my start before IBM came out with their first PC. My dad owned an early PC, and I used PC-DOS and MS-DOS versions up through the whole bleeding history. I used Windows 1.0 on those lovely old monochrome monitors, and was working on a GUI for a data collection circuit in college. Then 2.0/286/etc. with the proportional fonts and an untiled desktop. I beta-tested for 3.0, and joined Microsoft in time to be a part of the Windows 3.1 development team. Those were the fun days; most of those who hated Microsoft just preferred the technologies in other products from Lotus, Borland, or various Unix providers. And that was really just fine with everyone. Everyone but Microsoft management, of course. Managers steered the ship ever more steadily to the dark side, building on their success with monopoly-abusing deals and secret contracts with the OEMs. Ship a CPU, pay for Windows whether you use it or not. I left the company (for unrelated reasons) around the time when "Windows 95" was still code-named "Chicago," and that code name had just replaced the earlier code name: "Windows 93."

    By the way, if anyone has an unmodified copy of Win3.10 (not 3.11) USER.EXE, shoot me an email. I've lost some of my ancient archives and would like to snag some of the resources in that file.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  6. Re:Windows 1 was a failure, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    vaporware it certainly was not. Did the subby not read the article?

    Did you? Per the article, Windows 1.0 was several years late. During that considerable period, Windows was a product which had been announced but not delivered. Thus it was (past tense) vaporware.

  7. Sub-Optimal by headkase · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually what I was referring to was: Sub-Optimal Solutions. Up to the '90s it was a great matter of debate in economics. Many "learned" professors denied that it existed and that a market would always find the optimal solution. With the introduction of "lock-in" as a concept it is recognized that while markets will find optimal solutions they can become "stuck" with sub-optimal ones for a while. The time-scales are what matter, a market may view a few decades as a blip while to you and I that is quite a while.

    --
    Shh.
  8. Windows history by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember Windows. Back when I used to work for a little fly-by-night aerospace firm just down the road from Microsoft. We (engineering) were all using Macs for our 'productivity' applications. Serious work was done on VAX and various flavors of UNIX on mainframes/minis. It was the mid-90's. Windows had already been 'released' through version 3, but our IT department still considered it to be a joke. Unfortunately, someone in corporate had already drank the Microsoft Koolaide. The order was issued: We're going to become a Windows company. A cost justification was prepared, comparing a typical Mac, populated with every possible document/spreadsheet/database application to a bare bones DOS box. No Windows, no apps. Nothing but a C:> prompt. The DOS box won (go figure) and we all figured that the fix was in. The IT folks, under orders from management, started delivering empty DOS machines to our desks (Dells). So we could watch the little cursor blink, I guess. Meanwhile, the IT department was kicked into panic mode. They were tasked with running over to Redmond and sitting on Gates' head until MS delivered something that didn't stink. Meanwhile, for about 3 months, that damned machine just sat on my desk next to my Mac, taking up room, winking its stupid cursor at me.

    At about this time, Linux passed the 1.0 kernel version and started to look interesting. I requested the requisite authorizations and installed it on the useless Dell. I never looked back. I could log on to any of the engineering systems through X Windows and (thanks to a Citrix app) eventually access MS Office apps hosted on remote NT servers. Until I left in 2003 (when they transferred engineering to their overseas units) I ran Linux on my desktop. So, thanks Microsoft. I you'd have had a viable GUI back then, I'd probably still be sitting in front of it reading PowerPoint presentations (the only thing the remains of our engineering group uses) innstead of running my own engineering firm.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  9. MS-DOSS by tepples · · Score: 4, Funny

    DOSSHELL

    And all the Mac-tards at the time would say "I thought DOS had only one S."

  10. My run-ins with Windoze by indian_rediff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It was 1987. I was in Texas, working for a bank (as a consultant, installing some mainframe software for them), when the VP dropped by and asked whether I would want to see something new. He had an old guy pounding away at a new fangled thing called a personal computer (for them). I was more than happy to indulge him.

    Windows 2.0 was it! The key things that I remember doing are that the PC I used had no mouse. Since I was a mainframe type, everything was keyboard based in my prior life. I assumed that there must be special keystrokes that I needed to use to play with the new computer.

    Over a period of a few days, I stumbled on the keyboard shortcuts and familiarised myself completely with all of them. The amazing thing is that most of them are still relevant today - and my kids bug me to show them how to switch between windows quickly! In fact, I am amazed at how few people know many of the short cuts and the various ways in which you can play with computer without using the mouse! But I digress.

    Next week the VP dropped by again and asked whether I could install a game for him. I went ahead and installed the floppies (and they were real 5.25" floppies - not diskettes). And I started playing my first graphical game - Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards! Long story short - it was a fun few days while we indulged the old man (the Veep) and saw the various aspects of the game.

    I remember wondering about the keyboard shortcuts and wishing they were not so complicated.

    My next encounter with PCs was not until a couple of years later - Windows 3.1, a mouse and Quicken! And boy did I have a learning curve with the mouse! At first I thought the mouse was optional. It took me a good year or so to start using it without having to think about it.

    Good times ... until the Linux revolution began.

    --
    All views my own. Anyone else with the same views needs to have his/her head examined.