Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Recalling Windows 1.0 At 25 Years

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the if-you-knew-then dept.

alphadogg writes "When Microsoft released the very first version of Windows nearly 25 years ago, on Nov. 20, 1985, it was late to the game and little used. Apple had already brought graphical user interfaces to computers with Macintosh more than a year earlier, while DOS systems dominated the market for IBM and IBM-compatible PCs. No one who used this first version was likely to have predicted that Windows would completely dominate the PC market 25 years later..."

19 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Windows 1.0 was barely usable by ranulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Windows 1.0 was a complete joke - it didn't even support overlapping windows. Even Windows 2.0 in 1987 was pretty bad. About the only thing worth getting it for was the new Word-for-Windows, a WYSIWYG upgrade to Word 6.

    1. Re:Windows 1.0 was barely usable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Overlapping windows were patented by Apple, so they couldn't be implemented.

    2. Re:Windows 1.0 was barely usable by Anonymusing · · Score: 4, Informative

      Agreed. I remember trying out Windows 1.0 and thinking: this is it? Yuck. Even the initial releases of GEM were better than Windows 1.0. It wasn't until 3.0 that Windows started being usable.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    3. Re:Windows 1.0 was barely usable by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      3.0 wasn't bad. I ran it on my 8086 for a while. It was pretty easy to break, but most of that was due to the machine not having an MMU, so even the best written program couldn't prevent other code from breaking it. It ran moderately well in 640KB of RAM, as long as you didn't try running too many programs at once (where 'too many' is more than 2-3, or more than one large program). My father's company got their first license for free with a program called MetaDesign, a diagramming program. The company that made it decided that it was easier to write it for Win16 and bundle a copy of Windows than it was to write their own 2D graphics and windowing toolkit.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Windows 1.0 was barely usable by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, but the thing that makes Windows Windows was already there, even if it looked less organized than in later version.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:Windows 1.0 was barely usable by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Windows 1.0 was a complete joke - it didn't even support overlapping windows. Even Windows 2.0 in 1987 was pretty bad. About the only thing worth getting it for was the new Word-for-Windows, a WYSIWYG upgrade to Word 6.

      Windows only became truly useful once the Windows/386 variant of Windows 2.1 came out. I hardly ever used the GUI part of it, but its support for multiple virtual DOS sessions with built-in EMS was a great feature at the time. The early Windows GUI apps were generally a joke. I used mostly DOS apps in virtual consoles until Windows95 came out.

    6. Re:Windows 1.0 was barely usable by negRo_slim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Windows 1.0 was a complete joke

      Mayhaps it was mayhaps it wasn't; but one thing I do know: This article is a joke.

      "Windows 2 was, I believe, still in DOS," Easterling says. "Windows 3 was the first GUI one that I remember seeing."

      Why even write the article if you're going to be talking with people so unfamiliar with the software. You're arguing semantics whether it was in or on DOS for it wasn't until XP that the consumer line stopped using it. Kind of like Apple and BSD w/ their shiny UI.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  2. Recalling Windows? by TheLink · · Score: 5, Funny

    A bit too late for a recall of 1.0 right?

    --
  3. Open Hardware by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft just rode the wave of open IBM hardware specifications for the business PC. A little knife in the back of things like DRDOS and Microsoft had no competition.

    1. Re:Open Hardware by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you bought IBM's technical manual for the PC, you got full schematics and source code for the BIOS. It might not be free, but it was very open.

  4. Here's what it looks like by NixieBunny · · Score: 4, Informative

    My brother has way too many old PCs and software. Here's a page with screenshots of all the old Widows stuff: http://www.selectric.org/winhist/index.html

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  5. I remember the time by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Our office used Gem Desktop. We were amazed at how primitive Windows was by comparrison, with no overlapping windows, etc.

  6. Re:Amiga by Anonymusing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uh... Apple's GUI was not complete garbage. I agree Amiga was better, but don't dismiss Apple entirely. And the Mac OS eventually did multitask (cooperatively) when Multifinder came out in 1987.

    Also "dominate GUI of the 80s" is kind of like saying the Tesla is the dominant model of electric cars. It might be true (I have no idea), but the electric car market is a small slice of the larger automobile market. Most computers in the 80s were simply not GUI-run. The Amiga was cool but never quite got commercial traction.

    --
    Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
  7. The grandfather by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple was not the first company to offer a computer GUI. Xerox offered the Star workstation in 1981 but it was not a commercial success. In exchange for Apple stock, Apple designers were granted a tour of Xerox PARC as well as rights to use some of the PARC research. Apple would use this know how along with their own research to build Lisa then the Mac.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  8. Obligatory squeegee link by thatseattleguy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    And they announced it to the world...by sending out boxes with squeegees?

    (said items probably a hell of a lot more useful than the actual Windows 1.0 software ever was...)

  9. Windows 1.0 review by sfraggle · · Score: 4, Informative

    A while ago, I scanned in a review of Windows 1.0 that I found in an old magazine. It's quite interesting to read - the subtitle is "brightening up MS-DOS", and it is described as taking only four seconds to switch applications, compared to 30 seconds to start Microsoft Word from scratch! Glad to see some things never change.

    --
    were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
  10. Re:Oh God, more revisionist history? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

    More like stolen from Xerox, who was inspired by Alan Kay's ideas, who probably was at THE demo : DOUGLAS ENGLEBART

    By stolen, do you mean that Apple paid Xerox with IPO shares for a tour and a private demo with Q/A session with Xerox engineers? For most people, when you pay for something it's not "stolen". Xerox engineers did not like the idea but was directed by Xerox corporate to show their research with Apple. Even then, Apple did not blindly copy the Alto but took ideas and concepts from Xerox but made their own implementation with some of their own research.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  11. There is an important lesson for people to learn. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Windows 1.0 came out you had a lot of options.
    The Commodore Amiga was right around the corner. It was much more advanced and had real multitasking, stereo sound, and advanced graphics.
    The Atari ST was also just coming out. It was inexpensive and also had a good UI.
    Better doesn't all ways win.
    People stuck with DOS because it ran Lotus 123 and DBase, and WordPerfect.
    People used PCs to develop vertical applications because you could use TurboPascal ,TurboC , TurboBasic, and QuickBasic. You also had a lot of code like Borlands TurboEditor Toolbox, DatabaseToolbox, and Communications Toolbox.
    The other reason was marketing and Press coverage. The magazines of the day couldn't afford to offend the PC market. Would you rather get ad revenue from 30 PC makers or Commodore, Atari, and Apple?
    People will talk all about the benefits of the PCs openness but that was pretty much bull back then. The Amiga and ST where cheaper and more powerful than the average PC. Commodore and Atari at the time published all the pin outs and software specks needed to do anything you wanted much like Apple did back in the Apple II days.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  12. Re:Amiga by uglyduckling · · Score: 4, Informative

    You need to look at the history properly rather than repeat a myth. The Xerox system used tiled windows, had modal text 'buttons' at the bottom of each window (so no visual memory of where commands are) and a whole lot of things that are different to a modern GUI. During the development of the Macintosh and Lisa, Apple invented pull-down menus and dialog boxes, to name two things that are totally central to modern GUIs. You're right that Xerox got the ball rolling (although really they were derivative, see Douglas Engelbart's video for what he was doing in the 60's), but claiming that Apple simply ripped Xerox off is utter rubbish.