Slashdot Mirror


Happy 30th Birthday, Windows!

v3rgEz writes: And what a ride it's been. Today marks the 30th anniversary since the debut of Windows 1.01, the first commercial release of Windows. At the time, it was derided as being slow, buggy, and clunky, but since then ... Well, it looks a lot better. .The Verge has a pictorial history of Windows through the years. What's your fondest memory of Bill Gates Blue Screen-of-death that could?

249 comments

  1. I was not born into it, I adopted it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am also 30 years old and my first Windows experience was Windows 98. I use command line pretty often, but that's about it.

    1. Re:I was not born into it, I adopted it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you feel in charge?

    2. Re:I was not born into it, I adopted it by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      +1 bain

    3. Re:I was not born into it, I adopted it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story, junior.

  2. WHAT ABOUT BOB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You forgot Microsoft Bob, assholes.

    1. Re:WHAT ABOUT BOB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm terrible at giving head, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:WHAT ABOUT BOB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a picture of Windows 8, which is functionally and visually at same level than Bob was.

    3. Re:WHAT ABOUT BOB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft Bob gave only one thing: a wife for Bill Gates.

  3. Xfce=Win 1.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I never realized how much Xfce resembles Windows 1.0. Maybe its time to try Gnome.

  4. Liars! Windows 3.1 was the first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows Windows 3.1 was the first Windows. There was no "1.01", you're photoshopping Windows 10 to make 3.1 look bad.

    1. Re:Liars! Windows 3.1 was the first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no "1.01", you're photoshopping Windows 10

      Photoshop out the spyware and ads and Windows 10 looks just like Windows 1.0.

  5. say what you will about Windows 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... At least it wasn't in the business of spying on everything you do.

    It sucked, yes, but it was a less sleazy kind of suck.

    1. Re:say what you will about Windows 1... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Funny

      And what would it have done with any information it collected, without a network stack? Print it, with a header politely asking you to drop it in an envelope and send it off to Redmond?

    2. Re:say what you will about Windows 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... At least it wasn't in the business of spying on everything you do.

      Clearly you haven't yet upgraded to Win 10.

    3. Re:say what you will about Windows 1... by dissy · · Score: 1

      Hello Mr or Ms Victim,

      Please lift your telephone handset, dial the following toll number, and place the receiver into the acoustically coupled modem connected to 0x3F8.

      Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

      Sincerely yours -- Mr Virus

  6. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And yet has become the most used, most useful operating system in the world. Shut up.

  7. **appy 30th Birthday, Windows! by Enesim · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's your fondest memory of Bill Gates Blue Screen-of-death that could?

    Olympic fail - Blue Screen of Death Strikes Bird's Nest During Opening Ceremonies Torch Lighting
    http://www.gizmodo.com/5035456...

    1. Re:**appy 30th Birthday, Windows! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      What's your fondest memory of Bill Gates Blue Screen-of-death that could?

      The Olympic one is excellent, though I'd also have to go for the classic demo of Windows 98 which actually had Bill Gates standing right there when it happened.

      Bill: "... That must be why we're not shipping Windows 98 yet..."

      Absolutely, Bill. Absolutely.

      Unfortunately... you did ship that (though 98 wasn't that bad). But then Windows ME. And then Vista. And then Windows 8. You keep doing it.

  8. most useful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    lies

  9. Sucker until Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I switched over from my Mac when windows 95 came out. Before that there was no reason.

    1. Re:Sucker until Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Windows 95 came out I switched from Windows 3.11 to Linux. It was the best thing I did for both my desktop and my career.

      Now I make 2 to 3 times more than a Windows Architect.

    2. Re:Sucker until Windows 95 by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      When Windows 95 came out I switched from Windows 3.11 to Linux. It was the best thing I did for both my desktop and my career.

      Now I make 2 to 3 times more than a Windows Architect.

      So you make 2 to 3 hundred thousand?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    3. Re:Sucker until Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I make $253k a year.

    4. Re:Sucker until Windows 95 by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yes I make $253k a year.

      Can I borrow $20 til payday? I'm good for it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Sucker until Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1995 is also when Apple started selling Macs with DOS compatibility.

      So, arguably, there was no reason after that either.

    6. Re:Sucker until Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I make $253k a year.

      Can I borrow $20 til payday? I'm good for it.

      You're good for sucking APKs dick until he scerams HHHHOOOSSSTTTSSS and cums down your throat but only if you massage his tiny little balls just right!

  10. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by war4peace · · Score: 4, Funny

    You remind me of dogs barking while the huge caravan is passing in front of their tiny courtyards.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  11. Well deserved recongnition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Happy 30th Birthday botnets!

    1. Re:Well deserved recongnition by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      Google is only 17 years old.

  12. Windows has come a long way. by YukariHirai · · Score: 3, Funny

    There's now a wider variety of reasons Windows is derided.

    1. Re:Windows has come a long way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My uncle got an AT clone in 1989 that came with a whole slew of floppies to install MS-DOS 4.01 and Windows 286.
      I was the family computer kid, so I did it for him. That was the first mouse I had ever used!
      He used that computer for 8 years or so, but never tried Windows.
      In 1998 I moved out and bought my first PC. It came with Windows 95, but I would just boot in DOS mode. The only software I was interested in ran in DOS, and the command line was all I knew. That changed a little when I downloaded Netscape and tried out this Web thing, but I was just downloading DOS software.
      When the power supply died in 2004, I bought my second PC. It came with Windows XP. By that time Firefox was out, and I stuck around to try Windows itself. Finally the mouse made sense to me; I discovered some use cases for it. Thanks, Windows!
      I switched to Kubuntu in 2006, and I've never looked back.

  13. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If NeXTSTEP was so great, then why didn't it become as popular as Windows? It's nearly as old as Windows. It runs on x86 PCs, and has for a long time. It even has modern descendants, like Windows does. Yet Windows still powers almost all desktops and laptops, while NeXTSTEP and its descendants have only a tiny sliver of the market.

    We can't blame it all on the expensive-as-all-fuck hardware that NeXTSTEP and its descendants required. Clearly if the software were so good, it would be worth it for its users to spend some extra dough on it. Yet that never happened! NeXTSTEP and its descendants toil away in near obscurity while pretty much everyone uses Windows!

  14. 2003, their high water mark, pre-Ballmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Every desktop software they have made has been terrible since Ballmer arrived. We all know about Vista, 8.0, 8.1 and now spyware 10.0. Windows 7 is a buggy mess with horrible random Clippies imposed on the end users (Libraries? Really?) And Microsoft hasn't made good office software since Office 2003. Their design choices since then, starting with the ribbon, have been ridiculous.

    Satya Nadella promises new Microsoft software we will all love, but so far it's all detestable. Ballmer ruined that company. Nadella has a loong way to go to bring it back to the point where its software is at least at the level of unobjectionable, never mind loving it.

    1. Re:2003, their high water mark, pre-Ballmer by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      I like the ribbon. why does everybody hate on it?

    2. Re:2003, their high water mark, pre-Ballmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You love it or you hate it. I hate it, I'm not a frequent Windows or Office user but have to work with it occasionally. The ribbon is something you have to get used to, you have to remember how the icons of some options look like and remember where they are hidden. If you don't know this you will have to search in an abstract mess of icons. And the only way to see what an icon stands for is by holding your mouse pointer over an icon and wait for the pop up to appear. As an 'IT and Math Expert' I often have to ask help of a regular user to show me the option of some weird Excel function... This frustrates me a lot. A supposed expert that doesn't know his way in the most popular OS, simply because it doesn't support self discovery of features and is an inconsistent mess.
       

    3. Re:2003, their high water mark, pre-Ballmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or press F1 to get help that actually works pretty well, or Google, or take a freaking class.

    4. Re:2003, their high water mark, pre-Ballmer by rcase5 · · Score: 1

      Every desktop software they have made has been terrible since Ballmer arrived.

      Let's be clear; Ballmer had been at Microsoft for a long time. He wasn't some stranger they hired off the street when Bill Gates retired, he was a seasoned Microsoft veteran (he started there in 1980). But he certainly didn't have the edge that Bill Gates had. Also, Steve Ballmer was a business guy, whereas Bill Gates was a hardcore geek. Perhaps Bill Gates understood Microsoft's business better than Steve Ballmer (he certainly did from a technical point-of-view).

  15. Hooray! by hey! · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now Windows is too old to get a job in IT.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  16. Re:Windows is for cows. by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

    DEVICEHIGH=C:\OWS

  17. Not most used, sorry by raymorris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are more Linux devices in the world than Windows devices, and the gap is growing quickly. Perhaps you're thinking of which operating system is popular on general-purpose consumer devices only. Gartner reports than in 2014, 14% of general computing devices purchased ran Windows, while 49% run Android.

    For about another month, until Christmas, you CAN make the following claim;
    In English speaking countries, during work hours Monday through Friday, the majority of web surfing is on Windows. Android is the most popular on weekends, and after the another few million Android devices are unwrapped on Christmas morning it may beat Windows during work hours too.

    1. Re:Not most used, sorry by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone who calls a phone or tablet a "general computing device" in an effort to lump them in with actual PCs is a fucking tool seeking to sell data and analysis to a bunch of MBAs.

      Oh, you DID say it was Gartner, carry on then.

    2. Re:Not most used, sorry by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 5, Informative

      He did say useful though.

      Desktop/laptops are where you get things done. IMO phones and tablets are toys. You can play simple games, check your email, bring your porn with you to the bathroom etc. But the email and phone calls that are work related are about stuff that, guess what, 90% of people need to go to their (mostly Windows) PC to do.

      There are exceptions of course but most people do stuff other than communicating all day. Phones are horrible for anything requiring screen space, processing power etc. Phones might have the processing power but the apps that they run are still living in the 90's vs their PC equivalents.

    3. Re:Not most used, sorry by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

      I'm really not a Windows fan, but anyone who wants or needs to use Android for general computing tasks deserves pity.

    4. Re:Not most used, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why use a horse to pull your wagon when you could use, like, a million ants, am I right?

    5. Re:Not most used, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what my parents said about desktops: an expensive device just used as a toy. And they were right at that time. It wasn't used for anything else than to play games. I did my school work by writing it out by hand, since I didn't have a printer. (this was in the 80's/early 90's).

      You are claiming the same thing about smartphones in the mid 2010's. Will your claim still hold in the early 2020's ?

    6. Re:Not most used, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      General computing tasks are those that computers do to perform functions. These mostly consist of moving bits around and transforming them in useful ways. Any program that runs using any instruction set on any operating system and any hardware performs general computing tasks.

      Captcha: "Imagine" that.

    7. Re:Not most used, sorry by KGIII · · Score: 1

      kgiii@kgiii-desktop-8:~$ uptime
        02:23:30 up 72 days, 4:32, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.21, 0.39
      kgiii@kgiii-desktop:~$

      I rebooted just prior to leaving on my current adventure and I rebooted sometime since, well - 72 days ago, for e kernel update. I can, reasonably, expect to go twice that long or even ten times that long - if I want. I've a server that I think has been about three years now? I can't do that, as easily, with Windows. I like Windows well enough but I prefer to use the correct tool for the job I'm trying to do and that, in this case, means Linux.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Not most used, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linking to your own posts proves nothing.

      P.S. Thanks for all the free entertainment. Check the Talk and Edit History--they're a riot. Oh, and thanks for making it dead easy to track your sorry ass down even without the name and address and phone number you posted all over Ars some years back, too, fuckwit.

    9. Re:Not most used, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a cow. MOOOOOO!

    10. Re:Not most used, sorry by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      That's what my parents said about desktops: an expensive device just used as a toy. And they were right at that time.

      I don't particularly recall people saying that. Desktops, even non-IBM ones, were that expensive (equivalent to $2-3k today) that they were not bought for children - more like for adults "writing their book", keeping home accounts, and of course in offices as superior typewriters. Games crept in later.

      Anyway, you cannot sidestep ergonomics. A keyboard is and will remain the fastest and easiest way to input text information - even faster than voice when it comes to the editing which any serious text will require.

    11. Re:Not most used, sorry by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      kgiii@kgiii-desktop-8:~$ uptime

        02:23:30 up 72 days, 4:32, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.21, 0.39
      kgiii@kgiii-desktop:~$

      I rebooted just prior to leaving on my current adventure and I rebooted sometime since, well - 72 days ago, for e kernel update. I can, reasonably, expect to go twice that long or even ten times that long - if I want. I've a server that I think has been about three years now? I can't do that, as easily, with Windows. I like Windows well enough but I prefer to use the correct tool for the job I'm trying to do and that, in this case, means Linux.

      A properly managed and designed Windows server can stay up just as long as Linux systems. It's a myth that windows servers require a reboot every so often (excluding updates). All that means is that the server admin hasn't taken the time to track down and correct the system error. Most businesses put up with it because it's cheaper and easier to have the Windows box rebooted than it is to hire additional experienced Windows admins.

    12. Re:Not most used, sorry by fisted · · Score: 1

      the server admin hasn't taken the time to track down and correct the system error.

      Excuse me, but how do you track down and correct system errors in Windows? With a disssembler and hex editor?

      Oh, you probably mean googling for the error message (if there was one) and hoping that someone else has run into it before? Or clicking through the control panel in the hopes that changing something might accidentally fix the problem? Fair enough.

    13. Re:Not most used, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The event viewer, dumbass.

    14. Re:Not most used, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      $2-3K? Are you kidding me? My 8086 PC cost more like $6K back in the 80s.

      Also, I regularly connect my phone to external displays, keyboards and mice. It works just like a PC because it is a PC.

    15. Re: Not most used, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go away APK

    16. Re:Not most used, sorry by sexconker · · Score: 0

      Uh, this is Slashdot, Slashdot is for cows, we are ALL cows, moo.

    17. Re:Not most used, sorry by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Nope, parents used it to play Solitaire (in the early 90s) while children used it for adventure games and 3D games.

    18. Re:Not most used, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > $2-3K? Are you kidding me? My 8086 PC cost more like $6K back in the 80s.

      Well, that explains it. You should have bought an 8088 PC, they were much cheaper!

  18. wow 30 years! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

    30 years of software releases and still no stable builds! how do they do it? ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:wow 30 years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, haha, funny and all but I haven't experienced a blue screen that wasn't hardware related since XP. I'm not saying they don't happen but it's not Windows 98 anymore. Every time somebody makes a comment like this it makes me think they used a computer once about 1996 and then never touched them again.

    2. Re:wow 30 years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a blue screen of death last week at work on a Windows 7 machine. No clue why. The Windows 7 machine is more stable than my Linux home computer, or maybe more usable is a better term. When Firefox causes LMDE to swap the machine grinds to a halt for at least 10 minutes before I can barely do anything with it. If Firefox is nice enough to crash (about 30% of the time) then it stops swapping and everything is usable again. If not, then I have to restart or deal with a 4-7 second lag on all computer input. The linux computer uses a SSD and has 8GB of memory and 9.8 GB of swap space, Windows never gives me swapping issues. My Firefox and other program usage is similar on both computers.

      But at least all my computers can sleep or shutdown. Windows 95 and 98 couldn't even shutdown. Those workaholics. I've never seen a Linux machine refuse to stop working. They're so much lazier, even staying asleep when you try to wake them.

    3. Re:wow 30 years! by chipschap · · Score: 1

      When Firefox causes LMDE to swap the machine grinds to a halt for at least 10 minutes before I can barely do anything with it. If Firefox is nice enough to crash (about 30% of the time) then it stops swapping and everything is usable again. If not, then I have to restart or deal with a 4-7 second lag on all computer input. The linux computer uses a SSD and has 8GB of memory and 9.8 GB of swap space,

      This isn't even remotely credible. There is no way such a good hardware configuration (I'm assuming a decent CPU) would work so poorly unless you have something majorly screwed up, like disabling most of your memory.

    4. Re:wow 30 years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I haven't experienced a blue screen that wasn't hardware related since XP.

      That is probably because more recent Windows does a silent restart underneath the application rather than stopping and requiring a reboot. It is not more reliable, just better at hiding it.

    5. Re:wow 30 years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Windows is pretty much the most stable GUI OS that I've used (out of Windows 7 and beyond, Linux Desktop, Android, OS X, and OpenBSD).

      I use Linux/OpenBSD all the time (remotely though, via ssh) and love it. But on my primary desktop machine I find it much more enjoyable to run Windows...

    6. Re:wow 30 years! by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      It does not sound that incredible. Linux often goes unresponsive under heavy system load or swapping.

    7. Re:wow 30 years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, no. Windows does not do any kind of "silent restart underneath the application".

    8. Re:wow 30 years! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Try this:

      sudo sysctl vm.swappiness=40 (change to lower and lower until happy)

      When you're happy:

      sudo bash -c "echo 'vm.swappiness = 40' >> /etc/sysctl.conf"

      If it doesn't hold then try editing/creating this: /proc/sys/vm/swappiness

      And put just the number in there and save it - you'll want gksudo $your_text editor for this.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:wow 30 years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of BS. For people that actually use Windows and don't simply use it to check Facebook for ten minutes a day, you'll see several crashes a week. I see fewer crashes after upgrading to 32 GB of RAM from 16, but it still crashes when using VisualStudio especially while heavily stressing Window by trying to use the autocomplete while compiling.

    10. Re: wow 30 years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be mixing things up. Windows is known for that behavior, while Linux typically stays responsive even though there is heavy load. The main reason is that Linux programs don't run their UI on the main thead while that's thr default behavior for windooze (common pun btw)

    11. Re:wow 30 years! by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      My Linux system (Fedora) can become unresponsive under seriously heavy disk I/O or swap load. I've seen Firefox do it rarely, but for me it's more often the linux versions of the Second Life client (including third party versions). The damn thing has memory leaks and WILL eat all your RAM and swap space if you run it for long enough.

    12. Re:wow 30 years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks I'll give it a try.

    13. Re:wow 30 years! by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Maybe your SSD is extremely slow on writes - triggers very slow "thinking" after a few MBs are written - or the partitions, at least the swap one are "misaligned"?

    14. Re:wow 30 years! by chipschap · · Score: 1

      My Linux system (Fedora) can become unresponsive under seriously heavy disk I/O or swap load. I've seen Firefox do it rarely

      Agreed, I've seen this too with heavy I/O load, for me most typically copying multiple large files at once from disk to USB sticks (which, by the way, I find Windows does not do any better). But my objection was to the claim of seeing it with Firefox.

  19. Windows is devolving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The idiots took over the design of Windows and MSOffice after XP was released. Every improvement that has been made has been counterbalanced with the removal of 2 useful features. Apparently they now believe that 3 clicks is more efficient than 1 and that removing all the contrast in the GUI makes it easier to see things.

  20. Don't diss it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Windows has a long and sordid history, with predatory business practices at the front of our minds, and there have been shithouse editions of Windows. But if I met the engineers and others who pulled together Windows 95, Windows XP or Windows 7 I would shake their hands as vigorously as I would those of a Linux kernel maintainer.

    1. Re:Don't diss it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course when you say XP, I should hope you mean 2000. XP was a buggy hunk of ass till SP2

  21. 'Logan's Run' and Windows by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Has the rose in the palm of Windows' hand turned black now? Can we send it to Carousel and incinerate it? Please?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  22. ruining songs by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 2

    I can never again hear 'start me up' by the rolling stones without cringing due to windows 95 memories and the many parodies of the song that followed. I have a similar experience with 'come together' which will forever be in my mind as "the nortel networks song".

    Marketing sure is sick. i can hear them both, plain as day, 20 years later!

    --
    -
  23. Re:I hope I speak for many when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and fuck the trolls like Joe NoBloggs!"

  24. Yippee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I will celebrate by yet again doing the obligatory reinstall!

  25. Strangle Baby Windows? by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you could go back in time and strangle Baby Windows, would you?

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Strangle Baby Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's doing a pretty good job of strangling itself. I've had no BSODs since I installed Ubuntu 10.04.

    2. Re:Strangle Baby Windows? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      "Strangle Baby Hitler" is my euphemism for masturbating.

      Just putting that out there.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Strangle Baby Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you have had a bunch of "System problem detected" dialogs.

    4. Re:Strangle Baby Windows? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I used to dread the year of Linux on desktop. Now I just dread timetravel.

  26. Re: This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McDonalds is the most easily recognized and most popular restaurant in the world.

    Popularity != merit.

  27. Windows, yuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows, yuck.

  28. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says the asshole with an email address that clearly indicates they eagerly bent over to get fucked in the ass by Steve Jobs. I was forced to use shitty Apple II computers in elementary school. No sprites or dedicated sound chip. What a piece of garbage. Followed by the mac with a one button mouse and a black and white screen. Clearly the computer designed for stupid motherfuckers like you.

  29. Marketing not greatness of product by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    If NeXTSTEP was so great, then why didn't it become as popular as Windows?

    The success of something does not depend solely on how good it is. How well it is marketed plays a huge role as well. I will freely admit that Bill Gates is a world class genius when it comes to marketing software. When it comes to writing well designed, easy to use software his ability is far more modest.

    History is littered with examples where marketing has triumphed over technical greatness e.g. VHS vs. Betamax, the Sony mini-disc, the incandescent light bulb (invented by others marketed by Edison), Acorn Computers (who developed ARM in the late 1980's) etc. It's very common for better products to lose to better marketing - Just look at the film industry the Oscar for best picture is not handed out to the highest grossing film every year is it? So by all means admire Windows for the way it was marketed but if you are going to claim it is an excellent product you need to provide more evidence than just the volume of sales.

    1. Re:Marketing not greatness of product by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      History is littered with examples where marketing has triumphed over technical greatness

      I'm still mad that the Steve Jobs movie tanked too. Why is no one interested in the greatest mind of the 20th century?

      Bill Gates is a "marketing genius" but you never saw Steve Jobs resort to "marketing". did you? He did it all with nothing but pure genius, originality and grit.

      AND he was the son of a Syrian migrant, so yay.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Marketing not greatness of product by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      When I purchased my first computer with an actual hard drive larger then 500 meg, we had to select an operating system and purchase it separate. I ended up with windows 3 (which was later upgraded to 3.11 windows for workgroups- for the networking stack) because it came preinstalled on a I486 system and the price was about the same as the other systems I was looking at sans OS.

      Marketing is about right. D.O.S or Disk Operating System was named so in order to get the "well. you need an operating system now" confusion advantage. Then when Microsoft started OEM bundling deals with windows that basically made it appear to be a free operating system, they had a huge leg up. Until then. I had purchased OS2 warp and DOS, both of which had Microsoft's name on it when you went to install even though you had to purchase it though IBM for a hefty sum. At this time, when you purchased a modem and went online (because the computers didn't come with them unless you paid for an add on when ordering), you were either stuck with a BBS screen through telnet or had to purchase a web browser. Netscape was my choice at the time too as it was leading in almost every area as a web suit and I was familiar with it from OS2. Then when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with win 95, it was a no brainer as my 3.1 investment was largely still compatible and I could upgrade and have an easier time with my sound card IRQs (sound blaster awe32).

      Marketing is something MS did right. Of course they used their size and profitability from other areas of commerce to enhance that marketing. I will openly admit, I fell for it.

    3. Re:Marketing not greatness of product by MyAlternateID · · Score: 1

      When I purchased my first computer with an actual hard drive larger then 500 meg, we had to select an operating system and purchase it separate. I ended up with windows 3 (which was later upgraded to 3.11 windows for workgroups- for the networking stack) because it came preinstalled on a I486 system and the price was about the same as the other systems I was looking at sans OS.

      Marketing is about right. D.O.S or Disk Operating System was named so in order to get the "well. you need an operating system now" confusion advantage. Then when Microsoft started OEM bundling deals with windows that basically made it appear to be a free operating system, they had a huge leg up. Until then. I had purchased OS2 warp and DOS, both of which had Microsoft's name on it when you went to install even though you had to purchase it though IBM for a hefty sum. At this time, when you purchased a modem and went online (because the computers didn't come with them unless you paid for an add on when ordering), you were either stuck with a BBS screen through telnet or had to purchase a web browser. Netscape was my choice at the time too as it was leading in almost every area as a web suit and I was familiar with it from OS2. Then when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with win 95, it was a no brainer as my 3.1 investment was largely still compatible and I could upgrade and have an easier time with my sound card IRQs (sound blaster awe32).

      Marketing is something MS did right. Of course they used their size and profitability from other areas of commerce to enhance that marketing. I will openly admit, I fell for it.

      With you honesty you show a great deal of integrity and honor, and shine a light on the history of modern computing. It wasn't coincidence or accident that things played out the way that they did. It's that a genius for business outweighed a genius for sound system design, because all products of that era had to actually sell to gain marketshare. This was long before the GPL.

    4. Re:Marketing not greatness of product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If NeXTSTEP was so great, then why didn't it become as popular as Windows?

      The developer tools were too expensive. NextStep was $10,000 Windows was cheap. About $200 I paid for VB6 back in 98.

    5. Re:Marketing not greatness of product by rcase5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The success of something does not depend solely on how good it is. How well it is marketed plays a huge role as well. I will freely admit that Bill Gates is a world class genius when it comes to marketing software. When it comes to writing well designed, easy to use software his ability is far more modest.

      Spot on! And there's something else, too.

      If IBM hadn't selected Microsoft to provide an operating system for it's IBM PC, I think it's safe to say that the computing landscape would look quite different right now. IBM approached Microsoft to do an operating system for the IBM PC in 1980. Microsoft then referred IBM to Intergalactic Digital Research (remember them?), where Mrs. Kildall (who ran business affairs for IDR) turned them away because she didn't want to sign IBM's confidentiality agreements. If IDR hadn't dropped the ball, we'd all be worshiping at their altar instead of Microsoft's. Remember, Microsoft was a computer language company at that time; they had no Operating System. After IDR dropped the ball, Microsoft bought what would become DOS from another company, modified it to fit IBM's specs, then licensed it to IBM and, as it turned out, other companies as well. Microsoft's initial success in the O/S market was pure luck. It's continuing success is marketing. Plus, it was an easy call for users (individual and corporate) to stick with Microsoft Operating Systems since most everyone went to IBM-compatible computers in the 80s, so it was easy to retain users for compatibility reasons.

      Today's Microsoft is the Frankenstein's Monster that IBM created. Bill Gates was smart enough to seize on an opportunity and ran with it. None of this has anything to do with the quality of Microsoft's software. People endure Microsoft's software quality, design deficiencies and screw-ups because most feel like they don't have any other choice and, in many cases, they really don't.

    6. Re:Marketing not greatness of product by KGIII · · Score: 1

      GPL was written in 1989 if I recall correctly. I think it's a direct descendant of prior licenses - namely emacs among others (gcc maybe?). My memory is a bit fuzzy and that was quite some time ago. I believe 3.1 was early 1990s.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:Marketing not greatness of product by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      I will freely admit that Bill Gates is a world class genius when it comes to marketing software.

      I don't agree. Gates got on the bandwagon not because of genius, but because of the staggering incompetence of others. The incompetence of Digital Research of missing the chance to write the OS for the IBM PC. The incompetence of IBM management for not taking their own PC seriously and allowing Microsoft free reign to cash in on it instead. Gates was not the only person to see the great future for personal computers - everyone (except IBM management) saw it at the time.

      In another life Gates would have been the boring POS in the corner of the office who, because of his frequent temper outbursts, never got promoted.

      Since then, Microsoft's success has been due to pumping its established monopoly for all its worth, legally and illegally. That does not require genius.

  30. The Ribbon is functionally limited by CrashNBrn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the Ribbon interface is somewhat functional, it is limited compared to what it is replacing.
    * The Ribbon interface replaces both toolbars and drop-down menus.
    ----> The Ribbon interface is not as complete as the drop-down menu's.
    ----> The Ribbon interface is basically not customizable.
    ----> The Ribbon interface takes up more space than multiple toolbars and a menu-bar.
    ----> The Ribbon interface is limited to one "topic" available to use at any given time,
    whereas:
    ---> Toolbars could have multiple different toolbars on-screen at any given time.
    ---> Toolbars could be docked to different locations on the window: sides, top, bottom. ---> Toolbars could be UNdocked, and displayed outside of a given window.

    1. Re:The Ribbon is functionally limited by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      i suppose. sounds like a lot of whining. you're making an excel spreadsheet, not compositing a 3d animation.

    2. Re:The Ribbon is functionally limited by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      The Ribbon interface is basically not customizable.

      Except that it is fully customizable.

    3. Re:The Ribbon is functionally limited by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      That will allow you to create a similcrum of the existing Ribbon subjects, but it will not let you specify the dimensions of the elements (actions) that you are adding -- nor it's behaviour as the Ribbon changes width --- as to whether it should be "large" or med, small, if the element should stack on another --- you can't actually layout the toolbar, and if you even try to recreate the existing Ribbons the flaws of the limited customization is glaringly apparent.

    4. Re:The Ribbon is functionally limited by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Also, in other interfaces (beyond Office), where Toolbars used to be customizable, you will instead now have non-configurable Ribbons instead (see Explorer). To make File Explorer remotely usable, you'll need something like QTTabbar, then you can almost entirely ignore the Ribbon for most intents and purposes.

    5. Re:The Ribbon is functionally limited by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      ----> The Ribbon interface is not as complete as the drop-down menu's.

      I've yet to come across something I could do in a pre-ribbon office that I magically can't do now.

      ----> The Ribbon interface is basically not customizable.

      Good. Oh lord good. Thank good. Inconsistent interfaces are the bane of human existence. I'm all for minor customisations, but being able to just move buttons around is the reason why we're now in the world of "Have you done a complete system reset and nuked everything you ever own to try and fix your problem" style tech support. But you're wrong about that anyway. It's still customisable it's just not as easy to do so. There are restrictions though especially around the context limitations of some tools, and rightfully so.

      ----> The Ribbon interface takes up more space than multiple toolbars and a menu-bar.

      It also makes the targets easier to hit, and can be set to hide which the toolbars couldn't.

      ----> The Ribbon interface is limited to one "topic" available to use at any given time,

      It's not limited at all. It's no different from having menu items. The difference is why would I have a menu item allowing me to do many different things to a table when I don't have a table on the screen?

      ---> Toolbars could have multiple different toolbars on-screen at any given time.

      I thought you were just complaining about things using up the screen? All the options are there and based on all the research all of the common functions for use in programs are now accessible with less clicks.

      ---> Toolbars could be docked to different locations on the window: sides, top, bottom.

      Yeah phone support nightmare. I don't mind the idea of the entire tool cluster being docked somewhere else. That wouldn't be bad, but the ability to dock different toolbars in different places means that I can't just sit down at a computer and use it, I need to learn it. I don't miss this one bit.

      ---> Toolbars could be UNdocked, and displayed outside of a given window.

      See above. Inconsistency across interfaces was the bane of my existence.

      I didn't like the ribbon at first. It was a big step that needed a lot of learning. But now that it's here I don't know how I ever put up without it. Everything is just easier, and for all the really common tasks on the toolbar I remembered the shortcuts which still work and haven't changed.

  31. NeXTSTEP is in Mac OS X by DrYak · · Score: 2, Informative

    If NeXTSTEP was so great, then why didn't it become as popular as Windows? {...} Yet that never happened! NeXTSTEP and its descendants toil away in near obscurity while pretty much everyone uses Windows!

    Are you aware that Mac OS X is a derivative of NeXTSTEP ?
    And that iOS is in turn a distant cousin of Mac OS X ?

    These are immensly popular OSes (lots of Mac Books and Mac Air, around), and they are descendant of NeXTSTEP.
    Apple rehired Steve Jobs, partially to get hold on the technology as a replacement of the aging Mac OS Classic platform.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:NeXTSTEP is in Mac OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you aware that Mac OS X is a derivative of NeXTSTEP ?
      And that iOS is in turn a distant cousin of Mac OS X ?

      Indeed, NeXTSTEP is alive and well.

      However, the question remains why it failed when NeXT was not part of Apple. Pundits have written millions of words on the subject, so it's not worth re-hashing it here, but I think it's more than just price or difference in quality. The OS ecosystem is heavy on inertia, for one.

  32. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NeXSTEP was too expensive. The reason why OS X (the 'new NeXSTEP') isn't outselling Windows devices is because they are more expensive. Yet when you take a look in the high end range of laptops or desktops you see a lot higher market share for your NeXSTEP/OS X devices.

    In the cheaper department Linux is growing too. I see more and more Linux desktops and servers when visiting customers. The reason is simple. It is good enough and it doesn't require you to deal with evangelizing MS valued partners who want to move everyone to the cloud. I don't know the situation in the US, but over here many have made the step to replace their Windows XP machines not with hardware with Windows 7/8/10, but just with a Linux install. They are just interfacing to some cloud service anyway and Firefox is good enough to do this task.

  33. Who used Windows 1.x (or even 2.x) ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess I mainly played games on the PC and the games and all of them needed specific autoexec.bat / config.sys / etc. where I basically had to reboot the system whenever I wanted to play a different game. The games were always designed with the expectation that the end user only had DOS and not Windows so they came with their own DOS extenders (DPMI libraries/kernels) if required. I never had a reason to use Windows.

    Even for applications other than games though, I preferred the DOS versions at the time since they were more mature and less buggy.

    And regarding the top post where someone slags Windows and then someone replies to defend its success. The main reason why Windows succeeded really had little to do with Windows and more to do with the (relatively) low cost of the required hardware. DOS was more popular than Windows until the mid-90s and there was nothing wonderful about DOS. It was a glorified boot loader. But it was cheap and the hardware was cheap.

  34. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 0

    I pray you get "+5 Flamebait".

    --
    [Rent This Space]
  35. The rise and... fall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first experience with a GUI was on Sun workstations running Solaris. Another lab had a brand new Windows machine from "that DOS company, Microsoft". I went across grounds (that's campus for those not from UVa) and decided to try this new GUI. I gave up before it was finished booting... roughly 4 minutes into the boot process. Maybe the hardware was not ready for it; maybe it was all on the sys admins for doing that. That was 3.x probably. My later experiences with 3.x machines that were capable of booting in a timely manner wasn't much more impressive. It took Windows 95 to make me see it as worth more than DOS.

    I stood with it through the rough years. It was the "working man's OS", and I wrote software targeted at consumers. Even later when I was targeting *NIX servers, I was already hooked on MS's visual tools and the environment in general. My software had the benefit of being compiled on two platforms, so I saw and fixed more bugs, and fixed them more easily.

    Windows XP was the zenith. My XP machine almost ran 10 years. That's an eternity!

    Now MS is installing spyware, locking down hardware, trying to be like Apple/google/mobile, and failing miserably. The Visual tools are the last link. One of these days I might actually ditch it, but unlike a lot of people here I'll be sad.

    Open hardware standards, proprietary OS, IMHO it was the sweet spot for a lot of applications. Suck it, zealots; but suck it MS too because you failed to realize your own value.

    1. Re:The rise and... fall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went across grounds (that's campus for those not from UVa) and decided to try this new GUI. I gave up before it was finished booting... roughly 4 minutes into the boot process.

      I remember doing word processing and using Gopher and the brandy-new-shiny Netscape on Windows 3.1 with Trumpet WinSock.

      I went to a demonstration of Windows 95 by our webmaster, and he opened an HTML file in Notepad. The hard disk started thrashing. I thought to myself, "really??"

    2. Re: The rise and... fall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That machine probably only had 4MB of RAM, which wasn't enough for Win95 to run well.

    3. Re: The rise and... fall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probaly true. It might not have even had that much RAM.

  36. Looks by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Well. Looks aren't everything you know.

  37. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by MyAlternateID · · Score: 1, Troll

    And yet has become the most used, most useful operating system in the world. Shut up.

    Likewise, the most common form of government all throughout history has been some form of tyranny. Therefore, by your logic, tyranny is a good and highly desirable form of government.

    Do you see the fault in that yet?

  38. Basic computer terms 101 by raymorris · · Score: 0

    You may have missed some basic computer terminology back in grade school. Yes, a computer that runs hundreds of thousands of different applications is called a general purpose computer. A DVD player, a Nest thermostat, and the ECU is in your car are not.

    Other basic terms you might wish to become familiar with:
    CPU
    RAM
    email
    keyboard
    mouse
    server
    USB

  39. I remember... by edibobb · · Score: 1

    Thirty years ago I was sure that Windows would never make it because it was so slow and cumbersome. [add slow and cumbersome jokes here.]

  40. wow 30 years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Fave Moment: Arriving at a terminal at Toronto airport and finding *every* terminal in the placed displaying the BSOD. What a great advert for Microsoft.

  41. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by chipschap · · Score: 2

    And yet has become the most used, most useful operating system in the world.

    Most used? If you're talking about the PC platform (including laptops etc.), yes, true enough.

    Most useful? Matter of opinion. I personally find it anti-useful and a barrier rather than an aid to getting work done.

  42. Watching this whole thread by moronikos · · Score: 2

    ... left me thinking... Who says atheistic programmers and IT professionals are not religious? It's even driven some to pray...

    Gates a marketing genius? I don't think so. He got lucky that he got that initial contract with IBM. He was even more lucky that IBM did not buy him out when he offered to sell. Jobs seems to be a much better marketing genius...if you ask me.

    I think what made Windows last was applications and the attention Microsoft made to keep their software compatible with previous versions. The Windows team bent over backwards to work around problems that popular 3rd party applications had by misusing APIs.

    1. Re:Watching this whole thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > He got lucky that he got that initial contract with IBM.

      Gates got lucky that Kildall didn't recognize the golden opportunity presented to him. It wasn't luck that made Gates jump on it, it was fierce competitiveness.

  43. Remembering Windows NT by unixisc · · Score: 2

    And yet has become the most used, most useful operating system in the world. Shut up.

    I liked Windows from Windows NT onwards, not the Win16 or the Windows 95 based OSs. In fact, I rooted for Windows NT to be the great microprocessor leveller - available on MIPS and Alphas, in addition to x86. Unfortunately, Microsoft at the time didn't make use of the leadership opportunity that it had of doing a 64-bit OS long before memory requirements would force it there. As early as the 90s, they could have made the RISC editions of Windows NT purely 64-bit OSs, and then today, Windows would have been as ubiquitous as Android, since the portability aspect of the OS would have been thoroughly tested. In addition to that, heavy duty applications, such as CAD/CAM, EDA tools, et al could have run on the NT/RISC platforms getting all the firepower they needed. In the meantime, MIPS and Alpha could have gotten market traction, providing alternatives to Intel and giving both DEC and MIPS volumes needed to become fab powerhouses.

    Today, you have Microsoft wanting Windows 10 to be everywhere - trying to put it on Raspberry Pi's and so on. Sorry, but too little, too late. Had Windows NT and Windows CE been properly done on RISC based platforms, then they would have been viable platforms today, as a result of being tested on a range of hardware.

    1. Re: Remembering Windows NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's Carly Fiorina's fault.

    2. Re: Remembering Windows NT by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I'm no fan of Carly, but actually no, the deal b/w HP and NEXT happened when Lewis Platt was running HP.

  44. Why NEXT imploded by unixisc · · Score: 2

    If NeXTSTEP was so great, then why didn't it become as popular as Windows? It's nearly as old as Windows. It runs on x86 PCs, and has for a long time. It even has modern descendants, like Windows does. Yet Windows still powers almost all desktops and laptops, while NeXTSTEP and its descendants have only a tiny sliver of the market.

    We can't blame it all on the expensive-as-all-fuck hardware that NeXTSTEP and its descendants required. Clearly if the software were so good, it would be worth it for its users to spend some extra dough on it. Yet that never happened! NeXTSTEP and its descendants toil away in near obscurity while pretty much everyone uses Windows!

    NEXTSTEP was a fiasco b'cos NEXT/Jobs couldn't get Sun and HP to realize what a gem they had when that OS was ported to SPARC and PA/RISC. Also, for the price of their hardware, NEXT made some poor choices for platform - the 68030 was a really wimpy CPU for what was required. NEXTSTEP should either have supported parallel processing, or they should have ported the OS to something like a SPARC or MIPS and made NEXTSTATIONS based on that. That would have been a more justifiable bang for buck.

    I remember in college where I struggled w/ Unix terminals, not knowing much more than ls. Using a NEXT in our Computer Center totally exposed the power of Unix for me.

    And one can argue that NEXTSTEP was what transformed Apple, even though by the time OS-X was out for the first Macs, Intel had closed the gap on the CPU performance front, which is why Apple finally moved to that platform. And once it did, it was in direct competition w/ Microsoft.

  45. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by davester666 · · Score: 1

    Yes, nevermind that anti-competitive period back in the 80's, it probably didn't do much to solidify Windows as the only commercially viable OS.

    And it likely is also the most cursed at OS, and has caused the physical destruction of the most keyboards, mice and monitors of any OS.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  46. Memory? Goinf to the Win 95 party by mschuyler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was an "official" journalist and my magazine got me and my spouse an invite to Redmond. We met at a Seattle hotel to be bused over. I was on the same bus as a very disgruntled John Dvorak. Jay Leno was the MC, making stupid jokes about "Bill's double-wide" while "Bill" kept making cutting comments over how much he paid Leno to be there. It was, as was usual for MS events, very well catered with crab and shrimp, and the day was absolutely beautiful for Seattle: Blue skies and fluffy white clouds EXACTLY like the Windows 95 box. I'm sure Bill ordered the day extra special.

    There was a small plane which circled the campus with a banner that said, "Windows 95 brought to you by Windows NT" At the end of the day they threw open a massive tent where everyone there was given an MS bag with a copy of Win95 in. My wife was ecstatic that she got a copy.

    And yeah, I get it. Linux, Linux, Linux, and the fact is I was dragged kicking and screaming into a GUI from the old DOS days, or even back to CP/M and dBase II. But Windows is a phenom, and that's a fact, too. My life in IT would never have been the same without it, and you haters need to get over it. Sorry for your loss.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:Memory? Goinf to the Win 95 party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So your fondest memory of Windows is being bribed to say nice things about it? And Windows is a "phenom" -- which means what, that it's an actual thing that actually happened? Please forgive me, I take back everything bad I ever said about it.

    2. Re:Memory? Goinf to the Win 95 party by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I thought it was a city in Cambodia.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Memory? Goinf to the Win 95 party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's be honest here. If it wasn't for the games, windoze would rot in the IT dumpster along with OS/2...

    4. Re: Memory? Goinf to the Win 95 party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that is quite reminiscent of the way everything Microsoft works. If you can't make it good, make it look good... I guess your positive feelings towards Windows is to some degree inlfuenced by your wife being exstatic which means she probably paid you back in kind.... ;)

    5. Re:Memory? Goinf to the Win 95 party by antdude · · Score: 1

      Yep. Windows 95 was good but no match for NT4, 2K, XP, 7, etc. Vista was OK. However, Windows fell apart with ME, 8, 10, etc. though. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re:Memory? Goinf to the Win 95 party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, Windows fell apart with ME, 8, 10, etc. though. :(

      Don't forget 9!

    7. Re:Memory? Goinf to the Win 95 party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling someone a "hater" is a sure sign that you have no legitimate argument.

  47. still blue screens by iggymanz · · Score: 0

    fully patched Win 2012 R2 blue-screened at work yesterday, like it was 1998. The only "enterprise grade" os in the world that apparently needs a reboot schedule.

  48. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > And yet has become the most used, most useful operating system in the world.

    People don't buy computers to run operating systems, they buy them to run applications. They bought Apple II and Pets to run Visicalc, CP/M computers to run Wordstar, Supercalc and Peach Tree. They bought MS-DOS computers to run Wordperfect, IBM-PCs to run Lotus 123. Windows 1/2 to run Pagemaker, Windows/386 so they could run multiple DOS boxes.

    Microsoft made it easy to send Office documents around (though it was very bad practice to do this for many reasons) and then changed the file format with each version to force users to buy each new version so they could read documents sent to them (and to prevent competing products from reading them). This started the cycle of Windows and Office entrenchment.

    Windows is 'used' to start up applications, it is not particularly 'useful' beyond that.

  49. Are you illiterate?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If NeXTSTEP was so great, then why didn't it become as popular as Windows? It's nearly as old as Windows. It runs on x86 PCs, and has for a long time. It even has modern descendants , like Windows does. Yet Windows still powers almost all desktops and laptops, while NeXTSTEP and its descendants have only a tiny sliver of the market.

    We can't blame it all on the expensive-as-all-fuck hardware that NeXTSTEP and its descendants required. Clearly if the software were so good, it would be worth it for its users to spend some extra dough on it. Yet that never happened! NeXTSTEP and its descendants toil away in near obscurity while pretty much everyone uses Windows!

    The GP is obviously aware that OS X and iOS are derivatives of NeXTSTEP.

    That becomes clear when you actually read the GP's comment.

    Do you see all of the parts I emphasized in it?

    The parts where it refers to the "descendants" of NeXTSTEP?

    See them?

    Guess what they refer to?

    OS X and iOS!

    Holy fuck.

    I know the intelligence level here has dropped off completely since Dice took over, but your comment is supremely dumb.

    I don't expect you to be capable of reading the article, or even the summary, but you should at least be able to read the comment you're replying to!

    And you're wrong about OS X being "immensely popular".

    It has a single-digit market share, at best.

    Even iOS has a very small share of the market when compared to Android.

    Your comment is truly one of the stupidest I have seen here in a long time.

    It's remarkable how dumb it is.

  50. Thirty years ago by rossdee · · Score: 1

    I think Amiga Workbench 1.1 was around. It had plenty of bugs but was still pretty usable.

  51. Re: This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that along with MS-DOS, it put a PC in every office and eventually a PC in every home, without which Linux might not have been possible.

  52. Re:Windows a tragic waste of time and money .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    @jcr: "This is not something to commemorate." (Score:1, Flamebait)

    "Windows was and is a tragic waste of time and money." ref

    Why is this moderated 'flamebait', it's only a statement of fact ..

    As opposed to Linux, which is only a tragic waste of time...
     
      <puts on glasses>
     
    ...since it's free as in "not worth any money".
     
    YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!

  53. Seems moderation of all comments is like that by Strange+Attractor · · Score: 0

    I am disappointed by the moderation of all the articles here. Some longer thoughtful ones have been marked down.

    Recently I look at the articles selected on slashdot but don't sign in or read the comments.

    Is there a better site for links to tech news?

    1. Re:Seems moderation of all comments is like that by nickweller · · Score: 1

      @Strange Attractor: "I am disappointed by the moderation of all the articles here. Some longer thoughtful ones have been marked down."

      "Recently I look at the articles selected on slashdot but don't sign in or read the comments."

      "Is there a better site for links to tech news?."

      Hacker news

  54. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by quenda · · Score: 2

    And yet has become the most used, most useful operating system in the world.

    Kind of.

    Windows as we know it really is 22 years old, first released in July 1993 as Windows NT.
    It was a complete re-design that bore only superficial resemblance to that grotesque piece of excrement that was bolted onto DOS, and reached its nadir in Windows ME.

    That original windows was utter junk, and died when MS released XP, a version of NT with the nice desktop UI from Windows'95, but totally rewritten and redesigned underneath.

    As for "most used, most useful", that is only on the desktop, and due to monopoly power. Linux dominates everywhere else, from supercomputers to embedded, and even phones (followed by BSD).

  55. Thirty Years of Windows. by westlake · · Score: 1

    The MS-DOS and Windows PC entered the market as an affordable office workhorse, with strong software support from every major vendor.

    The OEM Windows system install became the gold standard for retail sales and support. The modular design of the PC meant that hardware advanced quickly --- and with Plug and Play configuration becoming the norm --- quite painlessly.

    Windows evolved into a capable operating system designed for users who share almost none of the geek's paranoia or obsessions with the internals of the system.

    1. Re:Thirty Years of Windows. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, the standarization encouraged and enforced by MS-DOS and Windows set up the PC platform to be something that evolved and left in it's wake a large diaspora of hardware that made it possible for Linux to thrive. It might be different today (with the bloatware many Linux desktop environments have become) but Linux probably wouldn't exist as it does today if it hadn't been possible while it was 'growing up' to take last year's Windows PC and install a current Linux distro on it which worked well.

      For years, old Windows boxes were 'free hardware for geeks' to run Linux on. Macs were useless for this. The plastic box 'bought in a department store' computers like the Amiga were also not any good for this.

    2. Re:Thirty Years of Windows. by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      Linux runs, and is developed, on almost any platform, not just "last year's Windows PC". It was originally developed on Minix, a version of Unix. So what's your point?

      Microsoft definitely wouldn't exist as it does today without its boost by IBM. And if IBM had not existed we would have had standardisation based on Commodore or some other brand of hardware - and been the better for it as the PC architecture was crippled. Standardisation occurred because the world needed it, not because of Microsoft, who have historically been the enemy of standardisation.

      Whatever course hardware had taken, sooner or later it was going to become powerful enough to put a version of Unix on it. Nothing to do with Microsoft.

  56. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by jcr · · Score: 0

    Billions of flies eat shit. What's your point?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  57. Subway is by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    Thanks in part to Jared, who only got 15 years today. Strange world...

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:Subway is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was Subway, not McDonalds.

    2. Re:Subway is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      James Rolfe looks almost exactly like Jared Fogle. I bet he's a child molester too.

  58. Nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > What's your fondest memory of Bill Gates Blue Screen-of-death that could?

    Nothing, really.

    Well, there is one thing: I paid for Windows 3.11 and that made me very satisfied because I was not pirating it like others. IIRC I also bought OS/2 warp but could never make it work properly because it demanded a better machine than the one I had back then.

    And that was it.

    OTOH, when I finally started to use Linux for real (in '99), I knew I was on the verge of entering a wild brave new world (to borrow a cliché).

    And, curiously enough, nowadays' users want phones for their main personal uses -- movies, communication, gaming, banking. John and Jane Doe won't want a personal desktop anymore.

    It's easier to put a computer in each pocket than one on each desk... except that Windows can't manage to make the jump, for Android and iOS already took most of the market. Microsoft is taking its own bitter medicine: being locked out of the market.

    I guess we can expect a fierce fight as Windows becomes more dependent on corporate purchases while people seem to grow attached to increasingly powerful phones.

    Now would be a great time to find fans just like the auto industry did when Asia makers started offering quality cars. Except that it really is hard to find somebody to love Windows...

  59. well that would be the vast majority by raymorris · · Score: 0

    As I mentioned, the vast majority of people do in fact choose Android. Sorry if you're having trouble selling your 50 pound, $1,200 relics these days. On the bright side, some offices still use them.

    Btw, in case you're not familiar with basic computer terminology, "general purpose computing" doesn't necessarily mean Visual Studio and CAD. It means a computer which runs more than one or two programs. A DVR is a special-purpose device, a Nest networked thermostat is a special purpose device, as is a fire-control radar system. On the other other hand, a computing device which can run hundreds of thousands of different applications is called a general purpose computer. And for that, for most of the applications released in the last three years, people use Android.

    1. Re:well that would be the vast majority by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I think it's fine that PCs are migrating more towards work or content creation type tasks, while phones and tablets are being used for light computing / content consumption for most people. Those smaller devices are much better suited for the masses than PCs ever were. Moreover, their portability and ubiquitous nature means they're going to be a lot more useful in the sort of small, everyday-life sort of situations that most people find practical for their personal needs.

      Don't mistake PCs for "relics", though, any more than a pickup truck or utility van is a "relic". They're just industrial-sized vehicles that most average drivers don't need, similar to how full-sized computers are designed for serious work (or play). And like it or not, when people have a PC, they're likely to be using Windows. While it's no longer as relevant as it once was in the computing world, it's very far from being irrelevant.

      P.S. High end phones can cost as much as $600-800, while low-end laptops can be bought for as low as $230.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  60. Run, runner! by SkOink · · Score: 1

    Maybe we'll get lucky and Window's palm will start glowing red.

    --
    ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
    1. Re:Run, runner! by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      "Renew! Renew! RENEW!!!"

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  61. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Windows was and is a tragic waste of time and money."

    Not so. It is now providing work for a second generation of IT specialists.

  62. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Yes. As just one example, think of all the effort and money lost by people rewriting their VB6 apps when Microsoft discontinued the language with no recourse.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  63. Windows is very usable by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 0

    Windows gets very usable once you installed Cygwin.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  64. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    "That original windows was utter junk, and died when MS released XP, a version of NT with the nice desktop UI from Windows'95, but totally rewritten and redesigned underneath."

    But what the old Windows-over-DOS did accomplish was beta test the Windows user interface.

  65. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    "If NeXTSTEP was so great, then why didn't it become as popular as Windows?"

    It steadily IS gaining on Windows: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

  66. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Except that the bulk of 'applications' written were written to the win32 API. There weren't too many written to the APIs of the other beloved OSs out there - no matter how much we may love them (and I do). While Apple had its fair share of applications, there weren't too many written for OS/2, Atari, Amiga, BeOS, or even the various Unix versions out there, except maybe Solaris.

  67. I wish Windows were not relevant. by Snufu · · Score: 1

    Many have long wanted to see Windows wiped from existence. Thirty years, in those same people reluctantly send their pound of flesh to Redmond every release cycle.

    Maybe in another thirty years there will be an open source desktop OS with more than single digit percentage use on the desktop.

  68. Windows 95 lol early on by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The first time change after it came out, during a LAN party, I was still one of the DOS users. At midnight all the Windows 95 boxes rebooted themselves and the DOS users declared victory

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  69. Re:Windows is for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You win 3 Internets and a pizza.

  70. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    look, we all take a break from shitting in Chevy Chase's cereal during his birthday.

    I think Windows deserves the same respect.

    I mean, Windows is terrible; but I think there's a time and a place for shitting on Windows and Windows' birthday is not it.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  71. Sorry, users are not selecting Linux ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    There are more Linux devices in the world than Windows devices ...

    That is a highly flawed argument. For example nearly all those Android users have no interest in Linux, do not even know it is there. The operating system these users care about is Android, and Linux merely sits behind the scenes hosting Android. If Linux were to be replaced by BSD as Android's underlying host nearly zero Android users would know or care if told.

    Even the vast majority of Android developers have no interest in the underlying Linux host. Linux does not compromise part of the Android API.

    In comparison, people who are buying personal computers are expecting Windows. Hell, even many people buying Macs have some interest in Windows and dual boot.

    1. Re:Sorry, users are not selecting Linux ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "In comparison, people who are buying personal computers are expecting Windows. "
      No they don't.
      People don't care what OS they have or use, in fact most can't even distinguish between the PC and OS, they just think that Windows is part of it period.

      Because of the flawed American laws Microsoft managed to keep it's monopoly for decades and enforce it in other countries as well. We're looking at 30 years of shoddy software because they managed to kill off all competition, not because their technical prowess.

    2. Re:Sorry, users are not selecting Linux ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're looking at 30 years of shoddy software because they managed to kill off all competition, not because their technical prowess.

      Yet STILL, after all these years, Linux distros desktops fucking sucks. You can't even make a shortcut in a logical way in Ubuntu, and locking the apps icon doesn't even work (sublime text)! File explorer in Windows is _superior_ to OS X and most Linux distros. It doesn't help for non-tech users that every answer for every problem in Linux is the terminal, and Windows even got some neat stuff there aswell with powershell and if you install their dev and server packages (includes basic stuff that should've been included like tail, windiff). The only thing that's really great about Linux distros is their package managers - and this comes with Windows 10.

  72. NT proven portable, proven new archs easy to add by perpenso · · Score: 2

    Microsoft did follow through on portability, the retail WinNT 4 CD had x86, MIPS, and PowerPC. Maybe Alpha but I think that may have been offered after launch day. WinNT was absolutely proven with respect to portability. Actually it was already proven, supporting MIPS and x86 from the beginning. NT 4 proved the "ease" at which new architectures could be supported.

    If any corporation had a large part to play in failing to "level the microprocessor field" it was Apple. By failing to deliver CHRP, a PowerPC based motherboard capable of dual booting Windows NT and Mac OS there was no point to PowerPC Windows NT. Alpha performed better, x86 was less expensive.

    As far as Alpha goes, few people needed the performance advantage.

    And finally, hats off to Intel, they were absolutely miracle workers. The ability to keep x86 close to PowerPC was unexpected. Its not really that PowerPC failed to deliver on its expected performance, its really that no one ever imagined that Intel could get the x86 architecture to those performance levels. Yeah CISC is harder to work with than RISC, but with sufficient money to throw at the problem the difficulty can be overcome. Well, sort of, modern x86s are RISC at their core, the CISC instructions being translated to the RISC instructions on the fly and behind the scenes.

  73. CompSci types loved NeXTSTEP OS and dev tools by perpenso · · Score: 2

    I remember in college where I struggled w/ Unix terminals, not knowing much more than ls. Using a NEXT in our Computer Center totally exposed the power of Unix for me.

    My computer science department evolved out of the math department. While computer science degrees had been awarded for quite some time the CS department was organizationally a specialty within the math department. When CS became its own independent department in the 90s assets had to allocated. There was a fight over who would get the NeXT workstations and who would get "stuck" with the Sun workstations. Students and faculty loved NeXTSTEP and its development tools.

    1. Re:CompSci types loved NeXTSTEP OS and dev tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our university had a similar power struggle. The mathematics department got a grant to set up a new computer science course and most of that money went on a couple of Sun servers and a room of SUN workstations. The centralized computer services unit was furious because they felt that money could have gone on additional CPU nodes on their mainframe.

      I still remember seeing those Sun workstations with NextSTEP back in the 1990s. That window system was 24-bit true-color and supported direct rendering using PostScript. You could have GUI windows with any font and just about any shape; rectangular, square, circular, elliptical, since it was all rendered using the same technology as a laser printer.

    2. Re:CompSci types loved NeXTSTEP OS and dev tools by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Those things would have been gems. The problem w/ the original NeXTstations, aside from the 68030, was that many of them were diskless workstations, so they'd be really slow. Get a proper SPARCstation w/ a hard disk worth anything, and it would have flown.

  74. Incorrect Statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Microsoft launched its first version of Windows on November 20th, 1985, to succeed MS-DOS."

    Actually Windows was originally an attempt to make Microsoft's flagship operating system (MS-DOS) more user friendly.
    It was not originally an operating system at all, but more akin to X-Windows, a user interface.
    Windows NT was Microsoft's first attempt to replace DOS as an operating system, released 8 years later.
    And finally Windows XP is the first non-NT version of Windows intended for home users, released some 16 years later.

    1. Re:Incorrect Statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction to my own statement;

      And finally Windows XP is the first NT based version of Windows intended for home users, released some 16 years later.

    2. Re:Incorrect Statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows was still released on the 20th November, 1985 regardless.

      You are trying to wedge Windows as only a "operating system' when it's about Windows as a product in general.

  75. Re:The more things change, the more they stay same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows 10 is as fast as XFCE.

  76. Its shoddy 3rd party software not Windows itself by perpenso · · Score: 1

    We are looking at 30 years of shoddy software because of shoddy programmers outside of microsoft, 3rd party application and driver developers. Such can screw up any ecosystem. See Linux hosted Android for a modern incarnation of this phenomena.

    To be fair to microsoft Windows NT was OK. Modern, capable, and one bad 3rd party driver away from disaster just like Linux and FreeBSD. I've been going the build-your-own route for my PCs for decades and I am somewhat picky about my parts, I've had pretty good luck with Windows and Linux. When running installers I tend to do a custom install and deselect the crapware and unnecessary stuff, when browser extensions are requested I say no.

    MacOS X's stability is to a large degree due to a lack of such 3rd party drivers, an artifact of Apple having such tight control over the hardware and providing most drivers. An open architecture with expansion slots is both a blessing and a curse.

  77. Re:My fondest memory... by KGIII · · Score: 1

    No, that was Minix. Linus didn't hate Windows, he wasn't even using Windows. Have you not read the infamous Usenet exchange?

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  78. Re:Sorry, users are not selecting Windows eith by stooo · · Score: 1

    >> That is a highly flawed argument. For example nearly all those Android users have no interest in Linux, do not even know it is there. The operating system these users care about is Android, and Linux

      That is a highly flawed argument. For example nearly all those Windows users have no interest in Windows. They rather would like to get work done.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  79. Logan's Run not such a bad idea by Threni · · Score: 1

    Just saying....

  80. Re:Sorry, users are not selecting Windows eith by perpenso · · Score: 1

    >> That is a highly flawed argument. For example nearly all those Android users have no interest in Linux, do not even know it is there. The operating system these users care about is Android, and Linux

    That is a highly flawed argument. For example nearly all those Windows users have no interest in Windows. They rather would like to get work done.

    Actually they have an interest in Windows-based apps so they do have an interest in Windows. Note the negative reviews of Chromebooks, lots and lots of complaints about not being able to installed Windows apps.

    And this tangent has little to do with the fact that nearly all Android users and developers don't care about Linux and Linux does little to let them get their work done. It simply hosts Android, the operating system that their apps run on, the apps that let users get things done. The "embedded" Linux vs desktop Windows comparison made earlier remains absurd.

  81. WIndow tech support issues by taylorius · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reason WIndows takes a lot of tech support resources is because the whole world uses it for everything. If everyday people tried using Linux all the time, there would be just as many problems.

    1. Re:WIndow tech support issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The reason WIndows takes a lot of tech support resources is because the whole world uses it for everything. If everyday people tried using Linux all the time, there would be just as many problems.

      So, you are saying that the problem with Windows is the stupid people who use it?

  82. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It ran only in NeXT computers, which were ridiculously expensive. Of course they did have some interesting HW, but the price was just too high.

  83. Knowing I will never need to use it again by smartin · · Score: 1

    My fondest memory is the day after I finished my previous job where I realized that I would never accept a job again that required me to use it. Fingers crossed anyway.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
  84. Happy Birthday Windows by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Thank you for years and years of job security, including the foreseeable future, on behalf of everyone in IT security.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  85. Windows/desktop vs Android/smartphone by CmdrTamale · · Score: 1

    There is a whole business segment that runs on phones these days - small builders.

    My favorite joiner and general fix-the-bits-that-are-falling-off-your-house man has a smartphone. He can barely use it. He is OK with texting and voicemail - email is a bit of a struggle. But he has to have it to keep in touch with customers, suppliers, and subcontractors. The younger ones are better with the technology.

    I am dealing with a supplier who runs his business from his phone. He has a woodworking shop, does made to measure for builders. He uses ebay for leads, email to agree specs & prices and send invoices, internet bank transfers for payment.

    His invoicing is a fine blend of old and new. He uses a stationers invoice book, a rubber stamp to put his business details in the blank at the top, writes his bank details, order details, prices by hand. Then he takes a picture with his phone and emails it.

    I make an internet bank transfer, email him a screen capture of that, and wait for delivery.

    He makes windows. From bits of tree.
    --
    One person's error is another person's data.

  86. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ooh, poor baby. While you were wailing over your sippy cup about the lack of a dedicated sound chip, Physicists were using Apple IIs to control Ion Sources. And while you were struggling with a one-button mouse, (That second hand of yours is used for more than just whacking off...), we were running Absoft Fortran on some of the very first Macintoshes released to the Public. The onat button mouse was quite useful when we first ported Spice to the Mac. Also, our Macs talked directly to our Unix boxes. It was _years_ before a PC running Windows could reliably do the same. (Win95R2.)

    Go back to your sippy cup, and remember to change your diaper, you moron.
    And shut the fuck up, unless an Adult asks you a direct question.

  87. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > It ran only in NeXT computers, which were ridiculously expensive.

    They were expensive compared to PCs, but not to the Unix workstations of the time. The problem was, it was underpowered as a workstation and couldn't justify the price.

    So NeXT became a software company, and ported the OS to x86 and SPARC. They didn't stir up much business that way. Their main business before selling out to Apple was their WebObjects technology which had a decent enterprise business.

  88. Re:Hello Coren22's 2nd shift menial sockpuppet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coren22, be nice now. Just cuz apk caught your MyAlternateID sockpuppet you use while you work your 2nd shift menial techie job doesn't mean you have to be a dolt. Oh, wait. In your case it you do. It's all you know how to do.

  89. Re:NT proven portable, proven new archs easy to ad by unixisc · · Score: 1

    While Microsoft did port NT to those 3 CPUs you mention, they did not support it beyond getting the OS itself on them. Like Visual Studio - they did Intel only, and DEC had to support the Alpha version, and maybe NEC the MIPS one. What I suggested above was that had Microsoft made Windows 7 for the RISC versions - letting their memory requirements be 4GB or above - and put all their own major apps on that, they would have had a good chance of succeeding. Some of the Alphas of that time were equivalent to some of today's x64s, so given a 64-bit OS, that could have worked, and Alpha too would have gone towards reducing the power consumption.

    As far as CHRP goes, the primary blame goes on IBM for failing to deliver on OS/2 for PowerPC. NT was never gonna be a primary driver for PowerPC, given that it was already there on MIPS and Alpha. CHRP was good as long as there was something to run on it, but Apple failed to deliver on Pink, Copeland or Gerschwin, and once they acquired NEXT, Steve recognized the futility of trying to go against Microsoft and canned Power Computing. So given that Apple wasn't committed to defining the standard, IBM should have done it w/ OS/2 on PPC. It would have enabled them to move both their hardware and software solutions to a single platform that they could brand all their own for the PC market.

    The reason Intel managed to catch up, other than their legendary fabrication models, was their ability to go the multicore route. And the reason they could do that was NT. Previously, for Windows 3.1 to Windows ME, those were only single processor OSs, so tossing in more cores wouldn't have done any good. But once Windows 2000 was out, merging the 2 Windows branches to the NT core, Intel could toss in as many cores as they liked to match anybody, while since they were running native x86, they actually saw the performance improvements that Alphas could only promise but never deliver. And once they combined that w/ power reduction as a strategy, the field was clear for them to steamroll the competition

  90. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by unixisc · · Score: 1

    They could have been successful had they managed to get Sun and HP to make it one of the optional default OSs for their workstations. It was a fine workstation OS, had it been priced properly. I guess the day we have GNUSTEP complete for both Linux and the BSDs, we could be closer.

  91. And to think by gabrieltss · · Score: 1

    That Commodore had a fully preemptive multitasking operating system (AmigaOS) during the same time Microsoft was trying to get Windows working with only task switching. Microsofts OS has been playing "catch up" ever since....

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
    1. Re:And to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like someone who invested in Commodore and has played catch up ever since.

    2. Re:And to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like an AC that thinks the Timex Sinclair is the best computer ever made.

  92. Re:WHAT ABOUT BOB? or JOE-BOB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who could forget Microsoft Joe-Bob!

    MICROSOFT UNVEILS NEW JOE-BOB(tm) SOFTWARE

    by Andrew Burke (ABurke@eworld.com)

                        REDMOND, Wash. -- April 10, 1995 -- Microsoft today announced the

    release of Joe-Bob(tm), a new software package that the company hopes

    will open up a huge untapped computer market. With the motto "The

    software for the rest of y'all(tm)," Joe-Bob reaches out to the same

    demographic group that buys 4x4s, supports the gun lobby, and drinks

    Miller Lite.

                        "Computers have been commonly seen as for leftists and

    intellectuals," explains Microsoft spokesperson Willy Maclean, "but

    we've recently seen people like Newt Gingrinch embracing new technology

    -- the time is right for the rest of America to get wired!"

                        Instead of a desktop or office metaphor, Joe-Bob(tm) puts the user

    in a garage. "Click on the Lynyrd Skynyrd tapes, and get a complete

    music library in digital stereo. Click on the pinups, and get hooked up

    to the Internet's hottest gifs," the promotional materials explain.

                        The package does not include a word processor or spreadsheet, but

    does have software that keeps track of the football season, lists the

    best roadhouses between Florida and Nevada, and can even order

    spareribs and beer at the click of a mouse.

                        "This is righteous software, man," says beta-tester Billy Grugg.

    "It thinks like I think." Brad Cunningham agrees: "I take it

    everywhere," he says, pointing to a Pentium laptop racked under his

    12-gauge in his pickup truck. Microsoft is offering desktop users a

    special clip-on beer holder for their monitors.

                        "Look at what's popular out there," says Microsoft Chairman Bill

    Gates.

                        "Four of the top-10 Usenet newsgroups are about sex, and splatter

    video games like Doom and Mortal Kombat are bestsellers. We're just

    catering to a demand, that's all."

                        Microsoft is reportedly distributing badges and bumper stickers

    saying things like "Joe-Bob: Make Your Disk Hard," "Go Microsoft -- Go

    Intel -- Go America," and "QuickTime is for Pinko Hippie Wimps."

                        Apple declined to comment.

  93. What was everyone's first Windows version used? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Mine was v3.0 on a couple International Business Machine (IBM) Personal System (PS)/2 machines (models 30 (286 10 Mhz) and P70 (386)). :O

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:What was everyone's first Windows version used? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      Mine was Windows 3.1?@#?$w1

      Before that we used PC's with DOS

      iirc our school couldn't afford a computer with enough RAM to have a GUI OS

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    2. Re:What was everyone's first Windows version used? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Good old DOS. I used IBM DOS v4.0 during my early PC days. V4.0 was horrible due to its memory management like its free conventional memory. Argh! :( DOS v3.3 and v5+ were way better.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:What was everyone's first Windows version used? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      My first experience was Windows 3, I forget whether it was 3.0 or 3.1. I installed it on a 286. With 1Mg RAM. Ever seen a snail run through molasses?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  94. Re: Hello Coren22's 2nd shift menial sockpuppet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give up, APK. The only reason anybody cares even an iota is that we all just want you to stop. Stop your spambot auto replies to whoever your vendetta is against this week, stop your ridiculous posturing as if this was some kind of dick measuring contest. Please seek some help for your social difficulties and please just stop posting anything that does not directly contribute to the discussion about the article.

    And no, I'm not either of the AC's above and I'm not any of your particular archenemies of the month either. I'm just someone who's been reading /. for years and is getting sick of your nonsense.

  95. Re: This is not something to commemorate. by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    Except that along with MS-DOS, it put a PC in every office

    No, IBM did that. Personal computers (non-IBM, non-Microsoft) had been around for a while already, but not in mainstream offices. That is because company IT buyers at the time would not buy anything without the IBM logo on it. The IBM PC made personal computers respectable to business because they were IBM, it would not have mattered what OS they ran (could have been CP/M-86, IBM could have written their own, Seattle Computer Products* could have provided DOS directly instead of via Microsoft, or whatever). Also, IBM PCs could be used as terminals to the company [IBM] mainframe so the clueless company buyers could be fooled into thinking the IBM PC was no more than that : that is how my office first got one.

    and eventually a PC in every home

    My home had a personal computer before the IBM PC with DOS was invented, and before I'd even heard of Microsoft. The young guys I worked with also had Commodores, Sinclairs etc. Home computing was taking off already without IBM/Microsoft's help and would have gone to the level it did with or without Microsoft

    without which Linux might not have been possible.

    That claim, sometimes heard, completely baffles me. Are you saying that personal computers would never have developed the power to run Linux if it had not been for Windows? WTF wouldn't they? Linux runs and is developed on almost any platform. It was originally developed on Minix, another Unix OS. IMHO Microsoft retarded the development of the PC by about 5 years while they had their love affair with Windows 9x.

    * You do realise don't you that DOS was not written by Gates or Microsoft, it was bought by them? They hired the author (Tim Paterson) to port it to the IBM PC.

  96. spreadsheets by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    What's your fondest memory of Bill Gates Blue Screen-of-death that could?

    i liked it when it actually helped me do something productive and worked with no malfunctions, which mostly happened when doing database analysis with some kind of spreadsheet or relational database software

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  97. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by MercTech · · Score: 1

    Nope, not even close. It became the default OS because Bill Gates sold a bill of goods to IBM who had effed up creating an OS for their first desktop.
    Gates bought QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) then repackaged it as PC-DOS 1.0. And the standard of mediocrity was given a firm foundation.
    The Windows GUI took until version 3.1 to actually be operable.
    They actually got things right with the GUI with Windows XP then started effing it up.
    The current Win10 GUI is horrendously horrid yet better than Win8. Who wants barely legible pastel on pastel as a default.. nuts. And the whole concept of APPS instead of Application Programs seems to mean marginally readable brain damaged interface with no indication where the settings menu is to get things set to readable or usable.

    --
    NRRPT/RCT
  98. Re:raymorris, how many 100's of times by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Holy shit looooooooooool.
    This is why I like APK. Calls out the tools.

  99. Re:Sorry, users are not selecting Windows eith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note the negative reviews of Chromebooks

    What negative reviews? I see on Amazon right now that the best selling laptop is a Chromebook with a 4.5 star rating out of 1,287 reviews.

    The relevance of Windows is gone for most users.

  100. And still better than any Linux desktop by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 1

    nuff said.

  101. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chevy Chase is a human being, Windows is not. Windows isn't even alive or tangible.

    It's pretty sad that you can't make that distinction.

  102. Re:NT proven portable, proven new archs easy to ad by perpenso · · Score: 1

    While Microsoft did port NT to those 3 CPUs you mention, ...

    Actually MIPS was not a port. MIPS was the original development platform, one way to make sure its not x86 dependent, then x86 was added. NT was essentially developed on MIPS and x86 in parallel.

    ... they did not support it beyond getting the OS itself on them. Like Visual Studio - they did Intel only, ...

    Actually Microsoft Word and Excel were PowerPC native. Adobe Photoshop too.

    ... and DEC had to support the Alpha version, and maybe NEC the MIPS one.

    Alpha wasn't targeting consumers like PowerPC was. It was targeting servers and high end workstations, productivity apps weren't really needed.

    What I suggested above was that had Microsoft made Windows 7 for the RISC versions - letting their memory requirements be 4GB or above - and put all their own major apps on that, they would have had a good chance of succeeding. Some of the Alphas of that time were equivalent to some of today's x64s, so given a 64-bit OS, that could have worked, and Alpha too would have gone towards reducing the power consumption.

    The market had spoken long before Windows 7. The market wanted low cost and backwards compatibility.

    As far as CHRP goes, the primary blame goes on IBM for failing to deliver on OS/2 for PowerPC. NT was never gonna be a primary driver for PowerPC, given that it was already there on MIPS and Alpha. CHRP was good as long as there was something to run on it, but Apple failed to deliver on Pink, Copeland or Gerschwin, and once they acquired NEXT, Steve recognized the futility of trying to go against Microsoft and canned Power Computing. So given that Apple wasn't committed to defining the standard, IBM should have done it w/ OS/2 on PPC. It would have enabled them to move both their hardware and software solutions to a single platform that they could brand all their own for the PC market.

    I don't know, I think the market had spoken on OS/2 as well. I remember OS/2 2.0, it was amazing compared to its contemporary 16-bit Windows 3.1. Windows NT was still only in beta. And the market largely did not care, on a platform where OS/2 2.0 offered absolutely superb legacy support for existing Windows apps. Something one would not have under PowerPC. The only thing that made sense with respect to PowerPC would be a single platform able to run Windows NT and Mac OS. We already had a single platform for Windows NT and OS/2.

  103. Re:Sorry, users are not selecting Windows eith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note the negative reviews of Chromebooks

    What negative reviews? I see on Amazon right now that the best selling laptop is a Chromebook with a 4.5 star rating out of 1,287 reviews. The relevance of Windows is gone for most users.

    Apparently you missed the first year or so of chromebooks. What negative reviews there were often cited Windows apps. Windows is still incredibly relevant, its just that over the years the word has got out that chromebooks are not PCs, that they are something else.

  104. Re:NT proven portable, proven new archs easy to ad by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Actually MIPS was not a port. MIPS was the original development platform, one way to make sure its not x86 dependent, then x86 was added. NT was essentially developed on MIPS and x86 in parallel.

    Yes & no. Microsoft developed the MIPS version on a DECstation 3000, which was a Ultrix workstation, and which never officially supported NT due to the Turbochannel bus. But the x86 version was released first.

    If you really want to nit pick, NT was actually developed on an i860 based computer.

    Actually Microsoft Word and Excel were PowerPC native. Adobe Photoshop too.

    As you mentioned below, Alpha wasn't targeted towards consumer apps. But Microsoft should have targeted some of their more compute intensive applications, starting w/ things like Access & Powerpoint. Just having Word and Excel on the Alpha edition of their Office Suite was lame.

    Alpha wasn't targeting consumers like PowerPC was. It was targeting servers and high end workstations, productivity apps weren't really needed.

    True. While that platform was supported by Pro-Engineer, DEC could have done a better job getting it supported by AutoCAD, Cadence, Mentor Graphics and others.

    The market had spoken long before Windows 7. The market wanted low cost and backwards compatibility.

    By Windows 7, I meant a 64-bit equivalent of Windows NT. DEC was working on some low cost versions of the Alphas, like their Multias. However, if a platform doesn't get much critical mass, there usually can't be much market segmentation done. Also, there were low cost RISCstations from other vendors, like DeskStation, Carrera Computers, Aspen and Microway. Companies that made workstations for NT out of MIPS or Alphas.

    The backward compatibility could have been handled at source level had Microsoft worked on an ANDF or some other technique, like Java later did on Bytecode.

    I don't know, I think the market had spoken on OS/2 as well. I remember OS/2 2.0, it was amazing compared to its contemporary 16-bit Windows 3.1. Windows NT was still only in beta. And the market largely did not care, on a platform where OS/2 2.0 offered absolutely superb legacy support for existing Windows apps. Something one would not have under PowerPC. The only thing that made sense with respect to PowerPC would be a single platform able to run Windows NT and Mac OS. We already had a single platform for Windows NT and OS/2.

    OS/2 didn't succeed despite its support for win16 applications, since win32 applications came pretty quickly, and OS/2 couldn't run that. Therefore, OS/2's option was to run independently of it. If any Intel based PC was sold, it automatically came w/ Windows, and vendors would refuse to preload it w/ OS/2. Even IBM's PC company Amber refused to do it. The main thing that PowerPC had going for it was Apple's OS - be it Pink, Copeland or Gershwin, OS/2 and BeOS, which had just appeared. Too bad everything imploded after Apple's taking back NEXT and Jobs.

  105. Re:Sorry, users are not selecting Windows eith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently you missed the first year or so of chromebooks.

    Wrong. In fact I just verified you are full of shit by looking up reviews for Chromebooks from the period of 2011-2012 and I see no negative reviews. I saw a couple of average reviews and many positive reviews.

    Windows is still incredibly relevant, its just that over the years the word has got out that chromebooks are not PCs, that they are something else.

    Hey, whatever you need to believe to sleep at night. For practically everyone else a Chromebook is just as much a PC as any Windows computer.

  106. Re:LOL, blow some more modpoints chump... apk by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

    Time zones are a thing.

  107. Re: This is not something to commemorate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> Except that along with MS-DOS, it put a PC in every office
    > No, IBM did that.

    Sort of. The fact that businesses wanted 100% IBM-PC compatibility made the clones a viable option. I worked in the offices of a fairly stodgy bank, and they were just fine with buying Compaq clones to run DOS and Windows. Nobody insisted on buying IBM, and the fact that you could buy a cheaper clone and keep running Windows, while IBM was pushing their proprietary PS/2 platform and OS/2, led to the explosion of desktop PCs in offices everywhere.

    IBM shot themselves in the foot. People bought PCs because of all the DOS/Windows apps available, not because of the IBM brand, stodgy conservative companies notwithstanding.

  108. Re:This is not something to commemorate. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    i was making the joke that Windows is the Chevy Chase of software. Or that Chevy Chase is the Windows of comedy.

    Either way I'm not sorry.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  109. Re: Hello Coren22's 2nd shift menial sockpuppet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, yes. Now go fuck yourself.