Slashdot Mirror
The Software That Failed To Compete With Windows
harrymcc writes "When Microsoft shipped Windows 1.0 back in November 1985 — it turned 25 on Saturday — it wasn't clear that its much-delayed windowing add-on for DOS was going to succeed. After all, it was a late arrival to a market that was already teeming with ambitious competitors. A quarter-century later, it's worth remembering the early Windows rivals that didn't make it: Visi On, Top View, GEM, DESQview, and more."
They left out the most viable competitor.
"Twenty-five years and two days later, it’s not just hard to remember an era in which Windows wasn’t everywhere"
Bullshit - As a C64 and Atari ST veteran, twenty-five years later it's painful to remember the extraordinary effort it took to lose to windows. I had better graphics playing Neuromancer on the C64 than windows managed for a decade, and let's not even talk about comparing Star Flight on the ST vs the DOS version.
Jack Tramiel should be strung up for crimes against computing.
{sigh} - Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
was awesome. I used it to run multiple nodes on my Renegade BBS. Of course, back then nothing was truly multitasking, but this was pretty darn stable for its time. We moved to Windows '95 when we were told that it would provide better multitasking abilities.
It was at that point I started truly despising Windows/Microsoft. "What are all of these files in my root directory?" I remember exclaiming. I always kept a very organized filesystem, and now my operating system was telling me I couldn't do that anymore.
It was all pretty much downhill from there.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
DESQview was brilliant. It was completely workable on the hardware of the time, functional, did what the box said, fast... It was the right solution for the time. It just happened that hardware moved on and left the phase in time that DESQview occupied behind.
I was running multinode BBSes under DESQview back in the day and getting fantastic performance. None of the graphical competitors were in any way workable alternatives for that sort of performance on the hardware available.
GEM was a damn good piece of software. It was actually multiplatform (CP/M on 8088 and 68000, DOS (any CPU), and I think I saw floppies of GEM for the Commodore 64.
Incredibly powerful considering the tiny resources it needed. One of the first DTP softwares, Ventura, was based on GEM for its user interface.
Like X, GEM isn't quite an operating system. It's a graphical shell. Well... more or less what Windows 1.0 was!
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Windows 1.0 was a total failure. Nobody used it. I worked at a computer store at the time and people would ask us to take it off the drives of the compter because they had no use for it.
Windows 2.0 was also a total failure.
Only when Windows 386 and WIndows 3.0 came out was Windows usable. Even then most people didn't use it. It just slowed down their dos programs.
Only when Windows 3.11 came out did WIndows become popular. Mostly to run DOS apps. Windows won because Microsoft just gave it away for the longest time. Almost nobody would have paid for it. That is why all the others failed. Most people wouldn't pay for a program to run programs!
Microsoft used the drug dealer method to win market share. But to call any version of Windows before 3.0 as not a failure is just not valid.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
What a load of shit. It is pretty hard to compete when PC vendors were tied by jackbooted licensing deals with Microsoft and they sabotage their own software so competing software won't or runs "poorly" compared to their own. What's that? Oh yeah, Microsoft was sued just for that; sabotaging their own software.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
I had a Tandy 1000 (still do actually) and ran Deskmate during the Windows 1.0 days... It is hard for people to understand just how messy things were in those days... printer drivers were essentially non-existent and you had to embed printer commands in documents if you were doing anything fancy (meaning different fonts or sizes). There were a plethora of TSR programs (Terminate-Stay Resident) like Sidekick. There were all kinds of hacks to make your machine use memory above 640k. Deskmate was basically something more similar to the Office suite than a real Windows replacement. There were all kinds of menuing programs at the time, many of them shareware, that would essentially allow you to build a simple application launch screen. Deskmate did a pretty fair job of documents and rudimentary spreadsheets... It was the MS Works of its day. Other applications like Lotus 123 and dBase (or Clipper) were the norm - and you ran one of them at a time. (No multitasking) So Windows 1.0 was basically a fancy menu program and as TFA points out, it had many competitors... It wasn't until Windows 2.1 came out that it advanced any farther than that...
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
These are not examples of technologies that Windows beat. They are example of companies, many of whom had superior products, that never made it due to Gates' underhanded business practices.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Thought it was more the "lock-in" provided by the Window API. Microsoft didn't conquer the workstation market until around 1995 with Windows NT/95. One by one they got the workstation vendors to replace their UNIX OS's with Windows NT using a "UNIX is LEGACY" advertising campaign; DEC, Digital, then HP and SGI caved in, as application developers could really only support the three most popular OS's that their customers use. As Windows NT took over one vendor after another, they gradually reached No.1 position and forced customers and vendors to use Windows.
UNIX competitors didn't help themselves by charging "UNIX" prices for components like monitors and RS232 cables as well as having totally different API's for everything - remnants of this can be seen when reading Linux man pages - there will be references to POSIX behavior, parameters or result codes.
At this time, Microsoft Mail was the dominant E-mail server software, but even they had to adopt "sockets" in order to connect to web servers. Sun came out with this little PC on a board solution that ran a Windows desktop in a window in order to allow users to use Microsoft Office, before buying up StarOffice (renamed to OpenOffice) and released it to break the Microsoft stranglehold, then went on to provide JAVA as a rival to MFC, .NET and C#
You can stand up to Microsoft, but only through co-operation, quality and reliability. Make sure that whatever you develop is to an internationally agreed standard that literally leaves no bit unspecified (even in an API function call). Otherwise, Microsoft will just find a way of embracing, extending and extinguishing that specification through a patent on the use of that single bit. Similarly with "extension" based API's and formats.
Tie down every single bit and avoid any sort of "extension format"
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Although I'm since 1979 in IT I had never before seen this stuff...
But knowing DOS and Win3.11 I managed to get it working again :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
"I believe Windows 1.0 predates OS/2 by a bit."
You're right, but OS/2 is worth mentioning anyway. I tried it back in the day, and really liked it. It was a 32 bit os when Windows was still only 16 bit ...
OS/2 2.0 was 32 bit but OS/2 1.0 was a 16-bit protected mode text based replacement for DOS. OS/2 1 eventually had a GUI called Presentation Manager, the API was very similar to MS Windows. I think OS/2 1 + PM is the actual first competitor to WIndows, not OS/2 2.
In the early MS Windows 3 era MS told developers that Windows was just a temporary GUI for DOS to satisfy existing installations that will eventually be migrated to OS/2 1 + Presentation Manager. They emphasized how source compatible WIndows and Presentation Manager were and that porting would not be a major issue.
IBM and MS were partners in OS/2. IBM was developing OS/2 2.0 while MS was developing OS/2 NT in parallel. While both were 32-bit and GUI based, OS/2 2 was the more expedient reworking of OS/2 1 and ran only on x86 CPUs. OS/2 NT was to be to the complete rewrite that would run on various CPUs. At some point MS decided to ditch IBM and renamed OS/2 NT to Windows NT. Its interesting to note that Windows NT offered OS/2 1 support.
You deserve your three digit /. ID :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
This is slashdot.
If slashdot users are using it, then it failed in the real world.
You didn't use Desqview appropriately, then.
With QEMM loaded on a 386 platform and lots of available memory, Desqview was a superior multitasker that would run raw DOS applications simultaneously. No special coding required, though if you did code to TopView/DV then more applications could be run simultaneously.
I ran 4 nodes of a DOS multinode BBS, along with door applications, on a single 386-20 DV box with 4MB of RAM. Searchlight, then Wildcat, if you are interested.
Easily kept up with the modems. In fact, the lack of a multiport serial board was more the reason why I didn't run more nodes than any inherent limitation of DV. There was plenty of CPU to spare.
The only limitation DV really had was that it didn't arbitrate hardware misconfigurations. Therefore, if you tried to use the same ports/IRQ lines from different windows, you could lock the system hard. Assuming you weren't doing anything stupid, though, it was great stuff. Also, doing BIOS video output made it easier for DV to control the output. Most applications did direct screen writes, so you were kind of stuck with the overhead unless you wrote your own code. I did, so using BIOS output was an option for me.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I would point out that StarOffice never ceased to exist (and never was quite the same as OpenOffice), and that .Net and C# came about to push Java out of the market, not the other way around.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
First of all, your post erroneously assumes that the answer to the question: "When will Linux be ready for the desktop?" is not "It has been ready for years.". You also are overlooking all the lies told, the FUD sold, the standards committee tampering, and the Halloween Documents that prove that Microsoft indeed cheated, even though it still didn't win (though their customers have certainly lost.)
The question I want answered is "When will Windows be ready for the desktop?", because I guarantee you my Linux box blows the doors of of any Windows machine hands down, and does it all without being a Malware fest.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun