Microsoft Windows 3.0 Is 20 Years Today 307
siliconbits writes "Some say that the Windows 3.0 GUI (remember, it needed MS-DOS or DR-DOS to work) was the single most important version, as it allowed Microsoft to get its day. The first truly successful Windows operating system is 20 years old today; Windows 3.0 was launched on 22 May 1990 and was the successor to Windows 2.1x."
Bing is following Google's lead (Score:5, Funny)
If you visit Bing [slashdot.org] you can run a Windows 3.0 emulator written in Javascript. Even has sound.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:5, Funny)
And if you'd formatted your link correctly, even other people could have visited it.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:5, Funny)
Actually OPs link is quite apt, in that it doesn't work :)
Win 3.1 emulator (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Win 3.1 emulator (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Win 3.1 emulator (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously you never knew the joys of writing C (not C++) for the Real Mode API.
Near.... Far! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Win 3.1 emulator (Score:4, Informative)
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/05/25/141253.aspx [msdn.com]
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:4, Funny)
If you visit Bing [slashdot.org] you can run a Windows 3.0 emulator written in Javascript. Even has sound.
And if you go here [helltycoon.com], you can run their Hell simulator, but who would want to? Same deal with a Windows 3.0 emulator.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
I think everyone should give those Windows 3.x emulators a try. They are great demonstrations for why many of us chose to buy Atari STs, Commodore Amigas, or Apple Macintoshes instead.
I hated using Windows 3.x.
Multitasking was an exercise in masochism (and also sadism when you pounded your keyboard). On Mac it was as easy as clicking Apple in the top corner, which would produce a dropdown of all running programs. On Amiga it was even easier. The Amiga-M and Amiga-N keys rapidly flipped through the running programs. I typically ran JRterm, a file manager, WordPerfect, C compiler, and the Workbench all at once.
Windows 3.x multitasking was like stepping 10 years back in time. It felt as if I was using a slow C64 again. I avoided using that OS as much as possible. Not until Windows 95 did they finally get a decent interface, which was basically just a clone of the Mac desktop (trashcan, shutdown procedure, finder, et cetera).
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd argue that Windows 3.0 wasn't nearly as important as 3.11.
I like to remind remind the "Linux desktop sucks!" folks that Windows 3.0 is 20 year old, NextStep 2.0 (That's OS X to you) is the same age, but the 1.0 releases of GNOME and KDE were but 11 and 12 years ago, respectively. Although Linux (the kernel) is almost 20 years old, the Free desktop isn't even a teenager yet.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:2, Funny)
Just don't look at the source code unless you want to end up in jail.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:3, Interesting)
3.0 was a big improvement over 2.x. Visually, it defined the look - the beveled buttons were first introduced with Windows 3.0 (although Microsoft was not the first company to use that visual clue). It was also the first version to support multimedia.
Most importantly, however, 3.0 was the first version to support protected mode properly. Windows 2.x supported protected mode a bit, but only for using the VM86 mode to isolate running DOS applications. With Windows 3.0, you could use a full 32-bit address space on a 386. You also got swap - programs on previous versions of Windows (and Windows 3.0 on older CPUs) typically hacked around low memory by manually writing as much as possible to .tmp files in low memory conditions, and reading it back when in the foreground.
Windows 3.0 was also the very last version to support the 8086. I ran it for several years because of this. Wikipedia claims that most Windows 3.0 programs required a 286 (standard mode) or above, but I never came across any - programs either required Windows 3.1, or worked on an 8086.
In some ways, Windows 3.0 was a more impressive accomplishment than 3.1 due to its far more limited system requirements. I ran 3.0 on a machine with an 8MHz, 16-bit CPU, a crappy addressing system that required 'far' pointers if you wanted to access data more than 64KB away from some arbitrary point (the value in an offset register), an EGA display, and 640KB of RAM, and no MMU. In contrast, the first machine that I owned that ran Windows 3.1 had a 16MHz CPU, 5MB of RAM (not a typo - 1MB on the board, and a matched set of four 1MB SIMMs) and a VGA display. The most important difference is that the 386, and even 286, in spite of numerous idiosyncrasies, has all of the features of a modern microprocessor. They had an MMU, separate privilege levels, and everything required to run a modern operating system. In contrast, the 8086 makes a $1 microcontroller look advanced in comparison.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:2)
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:2)
About a month ago my employer gave me an old laptop with Windows 3.1 --- trust me, you're not missing anything. Although I'm impressed that the OS and software fit inside just 0.008 gigabytes of RAM, I'm not impressed when I compare it to the other OSes of the day like MacOS 7, Amiga OS, or Atari ST-OS, all of which were superior. Even GEOS on the lowly C64 was better (imho).
Windows95 and NT 4 were Microsoft's first truly good OSes.... prior to that MS is best avoided.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:3, Informative)
Although I'm impressed that the OS and software fit inside just 0.008 gigabytes of RAM,
8MB? You're off by quite a bit. More than 4MB of RAM was quite rare for Windows 3.1, and a few machines shipped with 2MB (although that was very cramped). The machine I had that ran 3.0 only had 640KB of RAM.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:2)
Win 3.x and Mac OS both had cooperative multitasking. Win95 brought true preemptive multitasking. The Mac didn't have that till OSX.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:4, Informative)
Windows 95 only had cooperative multitasking as well.
You're completely wrong. Win9x had proper preemptive multitasking. You could CreateThread() two different threads, and they'd just run on their own, with no need for either one to yield. Whereas, Win 3.x didn't have CreateThread at all, and "process" switches happened during message pumping.
However, due to the lack of any notion of process boundaries or memory safety in 9x, any programs could break this extremely easily.
The 95/98/me series was just a bunch of stuff piled on top of old DOS- not really an OS at all, just a wad of runtime stuff running on top of DOS.
Well, 9x had its own kernel containing a thread and process scheduler, a virtual memory managemer, and a driver API - I'd say that qualifies as an OS. DOS was used as a bootloader for the kernel, effectively. Parts of it were also used when you ran DOS apps in Windows (which was a source of many problems, actually), but so long as you stuck to Win32 apps, DOS wasn't engaged.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
"Dollars are votes. We the People hold power to bankrupt corporations out of existence. No such power exists over Gov't."
No, dollars are not votes. We the People have no power to bankrupt corporations, and you are delusional if you think that.
However, we do have real power over Gov't - it's called actual votes.
Of course, the real problem is the power that the corporations have over Gov't.
The idea of dollars as votes is extremely un-democratic.
Does it work with... (Score:3, Funny)
I don't want to start a flame war, but can someone tell me when windows is going to support a one button mouse?
Re:Does it work with... (Score:2)
Do you prefer mouse driven context menus, or pervasive keyboard shortcuts + modifier keys for nearly every menu option? I guess I like both, but Windows nor OS X seem to grasp both of them equally well. Both have their ups and downs, but it's amusing when the one button mouse comes up without mentioning the difference in keyboard shortcuts.
Re:Does it work with... (Score:3, Insightful)
Please explain, why is this important
Try using Windows on a touchscreen. Until the last couple of years, when multitouch started to become mainstream, this was amazingly painful. Then try the same screen connected to a Mac. On the Mac, you'll find that all of the apps are easily usable, but when you plug in a multi-button mouse some things become faster. With the Windows machine, you need a floating window that contains a button that you press to mean 'interpret the next touch as a right click.'
Remember, the question was not whether a one button mouse is better (you'll find few people who think it is - even Jef Raskin changed his mind), but whether supporting a one-button mouse is important. If you support a one button mouse, you will work with pretty much any pointing device, including touchscreens, electronic whiteboards, tablets, light pens, and so on.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:4, Funny)
I don't see that as enough justification for visiting Bing.
Re:Bing is following Google's lead (Score:3, Funny)
If you visit Bing [slashdot.org] you can run a Windows 3.0 emulator written in Javascript. Even has sound.
Yay! Between the two of them, my two favorite games!
More importantly... (Score:2)
Re:More importantly... (Score:5, Funny)
That's odd. My teenage angst was fueled by 4000 color nudie pics downloaded on my Amiga. (My IBM PC friends were still stuck with only 256 or 16 colors... not lifelike at all.) I never got off on windows.
Re:More importantly... (Score:2)
I remember.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember going to a big computer show in early 1990 up in Birmingham. This was just before the Windows 3.0 announcement, so the Microsoft booth had a secret area inside it where they were showing the product to invited guests. As a dedicated Amiga fanatic at the time, I wasn't entirely impressed with it - however I did go back and recommend to my employer at the time (BP - no I don't work for them any more) that they should start looking into Windows again (we'd discounted Windows 2.x for widespread deployment).
Commodore used the same show to preview the Amiga 3000 computer, which was far more exciting to me, and I put my order in a couple of days after!
Jolyon
Re:I remember.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I remember.... (Score:2)
>>>I did go back and recommend to my employer at the time that they should start looking into Windows
Traitor. ;-) You should have recommended the Amiga. If you and other had done that, maybe Amiga would not have disappeared three years later due to lack of sales. ------ And yeah I was similarly unimpressed with Windows 3.0. It was a crappy, shitty OS. To quote someone else: "Using 3.0 and 3.1 largely consisted of opening random program groups, trying to find where your programs were hidden."
Also it was extremely difficult to multitask. If you were running both Word and Excel for example, you had to first minimize the Word window, then locate the icon representing Excel, followed by clicking it. Then if you wanted to switch back, minimize Excel, find the Word icon, and click it. Royal pain in the ass.
- On Mac it was as easy as clicking Apple, which would produce a dropdown of all running programs.
- On Amiga it was even easier. The Amiga-M and Amiga-N keys rapidly flipped through the running programs.
I hated using Windows 3.x. It felt like I was stepping 10 years back in time. It felt like I was using a slow non-multitasking Commodore=64 again. Not until Windows 95 did they finally get a decent interface (still used today). Of course the reason Win95 was so easy is because it was just a clone of the Mac desktop (trashcan, shutdown procedure, finder, et cetera).
Re:I remember.... (Score:2)
Traitor. ;-) You should have recommended the Amiga.
I did try, every chance I got. But purchasing had to be done through their official channels, if it wasn't on the official supply list, we weren't allowed to get it. I did however create the graphs used in the photos on their annual report one year using Deluxe Paint III on my Amiga 2000 at home. And I was far too junior to be involved in changing decisions made much higher up.
Also it was extremely difficult to multitask.
Don't forget multitasking, at the time, was seen as a "power user" option only. We'd experimented with all sorts of crap such as dos-based task switchers (remember Desqview 386?) but it was regarded that most people didn't want or need multitasking. They wrote a letter in Wordstar 4, then they loaded Lotus 1-2-3 to do their spreadsheets. Do both at the same time? that was far too confusing for "normal" people. I know it sounds silly now, but that was genuinely what IT management thought back in those days. The only reason we looked at Windows at all was to see if the mouse/gui system could improve productivity and reduce training costs associated with application use.
Jolyon
Re:I remember.... (Score:2)
Don't forget multitasking, at the time, was seen as a "power user" option only.
Funny how the phone business is repeating history.
Re:I remember.... (Score:2)
Also it was extremely difficult to multitask. If you were running both Word and Excel for example, you had to first minimize the Word window, then locate the icon representing Excel, followed by clicking it. Then if you wanted to switch back, minimize Excel, find the Word icon, and click it. Royal pain in the ass.
Didn't Windows 3.x have Alt+Tab? I distinctly remember using it. Worked like charm, and even today the best way to move between two programs, no matter what OS you prefer to use.
Re:I remember.... (Score:2)
Didn't Windows 3.x have Alt+Tab? I distinctly remember using it. Worked like charm, and even today the best way to move between two programs, no matter what OS you prefer to use.
Indeed it did, and it is. And that probably remains the one useful innovation Microsoft has contributed to the world of computing.
Re:I remember.... (Score:2)
Re:I remember.... (Score:2)
Me, like many other amigans of the time, were enjoying all kinds of amiga GUI goodness, and wanted to check out this expensive IBM PC stuff that was starting to be all the rage. When I saw DOS and the MS Word that was running on it, well, I just thought I'd puke - what the FUCK is this lame ASCII graphic clusterfuck (we didn't use the term "clusterfuck" at the time, but it's very appropriate)? But as we all know, Amiga died and Microsoft and the PC became kings. And this wasn't the last time that the lesser technology won, in IT, either: NetWare vs. Windows NT, NDS vs. Active Directory, BeOS vs. all the other OSes.
Win (Score:5, Funny)
The only time where you type Win to lose.
I thought of that joke when I was 11. Damn you misconfigured autoexec.bat! You led me down this path to the cubical I now live in!
Re:Win (Score:2)
On my computer, you typed "lose" to Win.
Mod Parent Up (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn you misconfigured autoexec.bat! You led me down this path to the cubical I now live in!
Insightful. Woefully, tragically, OMG what have I done with my life, insightful.
Re:Win (Score:2)
You led me down this path to the cubical I now live in!
Well, I suppose cubicle is derived from cubical but I don't think you can live in an adjective.
Much better article on the subject (Score:4, Interesting)
by me in PCMag.... [pcmag.com]
Re:Much better article on the subject (Score:2)
Is this a mistake? "This was a cooperative or 'non-preemptive' multitasking"..... "Windows 3.0 could run multiple DOS sessions preemptively". I think you meant cooperatively in the last sentence?
When people ask me the difference, I tell them that in cooperative multitasking, if your Email Program crashes, it takes down the whole system because it never releases control of the CPU. That happened a lot on my old Quadra Mac, making it freeze. In contract in preemptive multitasking, like an Amiga, the OS forces programs to give-up control so even if one of them crashes, it won't freeze the other programs.
Of course that's a simplified explanation.
Re:Much better article on the subject (Score:2)
It's impossible for DOS apps to run preemptively, since they don't yield time to the OS.
The article is correct, the multitasking for DOS sessions was preemptive.
Re:Much better article on the subject (Score:2)
The catch is, if a DOS program went into a long calculation loop, and never made any x86 INT calls, it could effectively block other Windows programs, by never calling the scheduler. I tried this in WfW 3.11, and even the mouse stopped moving.
So, from the DOS program's perspective, the scheduling could appear to be preemptive, but the actual Windows scheduling behind it was still cooperative.
Re:Much better article on the subject (Score:2)
Enhanced mode (Score:2)
Is this a mistake? "This was a cooperative or 'non-preemptive' multitasking"..... "Windows 3.0 could run multiple DOS sessions preemptively". I think you meant cooperatively in the last sentence?
No, DOS program were actually ran in separate virtual machines when Windows 3.0 was running in 386 Enhanced mode. Preemptive is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.0#Memory_modes [wikipedia.org]
Re:Much better article on the subject (Score:2)
Under pre-emptive multi tasking the scheduler interrupts the application's execution and suspends it's state registers to memory. It doesn't matter if the application yields or not becuase it's execution will be interupted by the timer and the scheduler will run.
Cooperative tasking requires the application return control to the OS by some means (like the DoIdle function on the MacOS). There are also schemes that allow indirect control to return to the OS, like when the program calls a system function the OS performs any background processing before servicing the request and returning control to the application.
Preemptive multitasking would be the only efficient way to multitask DOS since DOS programs would never be written to with a function to return control to the OS. But it may be that just the DOS executive used preemptive scheduling but still needed to receive initial control from the cooperative Windows applications.
dr-dos? (Score:2, Informative)
you dont have good memory, eh?
read up about undocumented dos functions in ms-dos and what happened when you tried to run windows 3 in dr-dos...
digital research went to court about it and roughly 10 years later they won .... only that they were already moved out of os market because of microsofts behaviour (oh these memories)
Re:dr-dos? (Score:2)
read up about undocumented dos functions in ms-dos and what happened when you tried to run windows 3 in dr-dos...
Fair enough:
The AARD code was a segment of obfuscated machine code that is included in several executables, including the installer and WIN.COM, in a beta release of Microsoft Windows 3.1. The code ran several functional tests on the underlying DOS that succeeded on MS-DOS, but resulted in a technical support message on competing operating systems. The name was derived from Microsoft programmer Aaron R. Reynolds (1955-2008), who used "AARD" to sign his work. ("AARD" was found in the machine code of the installer.) Microsoft disabled the AARD code for the final release of Windows 3.1.
AARD code [wikipedia.org]
Windows 3.1 was more significant (Score:4, Informative)
because it had truetype fonts. The combination of Windows 3.1 and HP's deskjet printers made it possible to perform desktop publishing for hundreds of dollars less than using other alternatives.
Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (Score:4, Interesting)
because it had truetype fonts. The combination of Windows 3.1 and HP's deskjet printers made it possible to perform desktop publishing for hundreds of dollars less than using other alternatives.
Of course, it didn't work as well as the other alternatives either. I worked at a service bureau at that time and we absolutely hated it when files that had been created under Windows 3.x came in because we knew it was going to cause us headaches. While Windows might have worked okay for simple documents printed to a user's own printer, it wasn't adequate for high-end graphics work.
Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (Score:5, Insightful)
People didn't want high end work though, they wanted Good Enough(tm) and didn't want to spend a fortune to do it.
Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (Score:2)
I'm sure the file produced wasn't compatible with high-end equipment, but since the rendering was done in the computer rather than in the printer, Windows was a much more trouble-free method than using a laser printer.
I never had a problem printing a page on the deskjet but encountered many pages that wouldn't print on the laser printer because they were too complex.
Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember supporting PageMaker on Mac and Windows - it was awful on both platforms (this was Pre-Quark when PageMaker was pretty much the only app to do layout with). To get really good results on the Mac you have to have an 8-10k machine, to get decentish results on a Windows PC you could get away with a $1200 Dell.
In other words - an 8 meg Mac was worthless for DTP, but an 8 meg Dell did ok at it - I think this was largely for the fact that System 7 just had that much more overhead. 8 megs was a ton of ram for Windows 3.x, but I can specifically remember my 8 meg IICX being horrible at about everything (and it was like an 8000 dollar machine with the nice screen attached) until it was upgraded to 32 (I think) - which was a ton of money at the time.
Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (Score:2)
System 7 wasn't bad at all. It had a minimum requirement of 1MB of RAM or something (I remember people were in a uproar over how much more it needed that system 6). I ran it on my MacSE with 2.5MB of RAM just fine.
I think the difference is the way the systems managed memory. On the Mac applications would have the initial and maximum size under the "Get Info" window. IIRC PageMaker's requirements were fairly high (and you would want to give it more memory if possible for better performance). I'm positive that Windows 3.1 had virtual memory, so it could probably swap a lot of PageMaker's memory to disk, which the Mac couldn't do back then.
Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (Score:2)
Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (Score:2)
Good times!
Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (Score:2)
No. 3.1 was more significant because of the 386 enhanced mode.
Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (Score:2)
Enhanced mode was in 3.0, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.0#Memory_modes [wikipedia.org]
The change in memory modes was that Real mode was removed from 3.1
Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (Score:2)
Ah yes (Score:5, Insightful)
The version of Windows that made you wish your 286 was a 386 and 640KB of ram certainly was n't more than you would ever need. Fond memories of wondering where 150K of memory had disappeared to only to realise that lovely desktop background image you set sucked 15% of your free memory. I also remember if you typed fast enough MS Write could n't keep up and you would fill the input buffer, let alone running MS Word. I can n't say I'ill miss those days.
I guess it sucked to be you (Score:2, Troll)
You're whining because you didn't have enough RAM? On a 386 with plenty of RAM Win 3.0 did a pretty good job for it's time. I preferred OS/2 in those days but I used Windows (often WinOS2, sometimes via dual boot) plenty as well and it was good for what it was. Then again I had 4 Meg of RAM, not the 640k you're whining about.
As for the overhead in DOS, it was very easy to boot all sorts of DOS configurations with memory managers to free up a LOT of space. Towards the end of the DOS era many games almost required you to do so in order to run as they hit the brick wall.
It wasn't an Operating System as the article intro states though. It was a shell that sat on top of DOS and allowed cooperative multitasking and (on 386+CPU's) the use of Virtual 8086 mode to even multitask many DOS programs.
Windows 3.0 Sucked! (Score:5, Funny)
The day Microsoft release a product that doesn't suck will be the day they release their first vacuum cleaner!
Re:Windows 3.0 Sucked! (Score:2, Funny)
The day Microsoft release a product that doesn't suck will be the day they release their first vacuum cleaner!
It's rather a pity the geek's jokes aren't stamped with an expiration date like a gallon of milk.
Re:Windows 3.0 Sucked! (Score:3, Interesting)
That used to be a joke, but today you can run Microsoft Robotics Studio on your Roomba [devx.com].
Are You Ready, Google? (Score:2)
Boy did I read that wrong! (Score:2)
I read the title as "Microsoft Windows 8.0 Is 20 Years Away"
(and I wasn't even very surprised...)
Google logo (Score:3, Funny)
Windows 3 (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there a point? (Score:5, Informative)
Is there a point to this story, other than "hur hur let's make fun of Microsoft! hur hur hur!"
Now if you found someone still using it today, that might be newsworthy.
Re:Is there a point? (Score:2)
Why is any such celebration noteworthy? Is it anything different if something is 19,99 years or 20,01 years? No, but it's an excuse to look back and either reminisce to talk about how long/short/whatever we've come in the last 20 years. Or maybe just get the feeling you're getting old... I can't say 3.0 was a very memorable release for me but 3.11 was, just makes me realize how much of the stone age of the home computer I caught - granted, I was in diapers when the PC was invented but the first PCs were priced beyond fooling around at home. "C:\>", what a friendly way to greet your users DOS was. For all the flaws, Windows 3 was still a huge game changer in computers.
Re:Is there a point? (Score:2)
Re:Is there a point? (Score:2)
20 years ago (Score:2)
I was using Amiga Workbench 2.04 back then
Apps that are now part of the Windows experience? (Score:2)
From the article:
Windows Explorer essentially replaced File Manager in Windows 95, and they were actually included as separate programs for quite some time (altough File Manager only as the executabe if you knew where to look). I suppose you could argue that Explorer was derived from File Mananger, although they are actually quite different (especially after the Active Desktop update in Windows 95 and all future versions). Program Manager faced a similar fate: the Start menu (and desktop that could do something besides display running applications) substatially replaced it in Windows 95, although you could technically change your shell back to Program Manager instead if you really wanted. It didn't work as nicely, however, due to some changes to minimized window behavior, and I wouldn't be surprised if some app installers didn't play well with it in terms of creating icons.
Ignoring the comment about Write (which more or less morphed into Wordpad...), I just don't think it's accurate to say that File Manager and Program Manager are "now part of the Windows Experience" when many people haven't even used them in 15 years and some people have never used them at all.
Re:Apps that are now part of the Windows experienc (Score:2)
Write did morph into WordPad, and PaintBrush into MSPaint. In fact, if you type "Write" or "Pbrush" into the run box there is an App Paths mapping that redirects them to their newer equivellents.
File Manager was atill used for a long time under Windows NT. At one time it was the only tool that could work with some of the Services for Macintosh. It may even be included with Server 2003, but I haven't had to use it in so long I don't even know. There is also a version of winfile for Vista [brydon.net].
Program Manager was garbage and the only contribution to the "Windows experience" is the program to convert progman groups into start menu folders (grpconv.exe) which still ships with current Windows versions...probably for compatability with apps like you described.
Re:Apps that are now part of the Windows experienc (Score:2)
There is also a version of winfile for Vista [brydon.net].
Interesting link... thanks. :)
I think Windows 95 is more significant. (Score:2)
While Windows 3.0 was important in its day, the more important version is Windows 95, which came out on August 24, 1995. Windows 95 took full advantage of 32-bit memory addressing, and the interface standards pioneered by Windows 95 are still with us in 2010, where even Windows 7 still has the taskbar on the bottom of the screen with the Start button on the lower left corner of the screen.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Windows 386 (Score:2)
Re:F*ck Microsoft. (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, that is soo last decade. Now it's F*ck the Cloud!
Re:NO NO NO NO NO (Score:2)
If you kill a product it does not get another birthday.
Tell that to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King.
Re:NO NO NO NO NO (Score:2)
If you kill a product it does not get another birthday.
Tell that to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King.
You can't. They're dead.
Also, notice that nobody announces how old George Washington is every year.
Re:NO NO NO NO NO (Score:2)
Nobody announces how old Windows 3.0 is every year either.
Re:"First truly successful windows" (Score:2)
Reading comprehension FAIL! (Score:2)
AmigaOS was the first truly successful multi-windows system.
Before that there was the Apple Lisa.
Sorry, OP, and sorry Slashdot editors who were sleeping on the job. Windows 3.0 was a joke, is a joke, and will always be a joke.
"First [lol] truly successful [LOL] windows [ROTFLMAO!!!]"
E
Amiga. Lisa. X-11. And someone thinks winblows3.0 is "the first truly successful" oh god I'm laughing so hard.
FTFS:
The first truly successful Windows operating system is...
This is in the context of MS Windows. Yes, there were windowing environments before MS Windows. But MS Windows 3.0 was the first truly successful version of Windows.
The article is still fail (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows 3.0 wasnt succesful at all. A lot of boxes may have gone out, but after a week of playing with it, they sat on the shelf and we all went back to getting work done without it. It was atrocious.
Now was it a "Windows operating system" however you parse it. It was at best a windowing environment. The Operating System was still DOS, and remained DOS until NT/XP.
Windows 3.1 was the first MS Windows environment to be useable enough that people actually ran it for more than just a 'look at this' phase. It was still a huge step down from other multi-tasking DOS shells, and it took years for it to be forced down the throats of the more clueful users, by the expedient of discontinuing support and development of all the applications in favour of new, inferior versions which would only run within the Windows environment.
Re:"First truly successful windows" (Score:2)
If by "successful" you mean widely adopted, I would say the Mac was first. If you mean "practical", I'd claim it was the Xerox Alto.
Re:"First truly successful windows" (Score:2)
Yeah, too bad neither the Amiga nor the Lisa were ever relevant outside the US. Macs only began to be noticeable on a global scale in the System 7 era, which was posterior to Win3.x, and the Amiga, Commodore and other smaller players never became worthy of mention until the day they died.
X11 is kinda sorta more arguable, as SCO (the old one, not the jackass) did a fairly good job of selling its version of Unix to enterprises but I don't recall ever seeing one running X11, probably because it was sold as a separate add-on according to Wikipedia.
Re:"First truly successful windows" (Score:3, Informative)
The Amiga was large in the UK home user market, and I think Germany as well - most of my friends had an Amiga, while only a select few had PCs and I cannot think of one that had a Mac (and only a single one had an Atari).
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"First truly successful windows" (Score:3)
>>>Yeah, too bad neither the Amiga nor the Lisa were ever relevant outside the US
Completely and totally wrong. I can't speak to Macs, but Amigas were HUGE in Europe, and even today most of the Amiga community resides in the EU.
Re:"First truly successful windows" (Score:2)
Still it must be said - it sold 3 million copies in its first year (according to the book Accidental Empires, and the subsequent documentary Triumph of the Nerds) which was like 10x more than all the Mac's Apple ever sold up to that point.
Re:leading the GUI (Score:2)
Re:leading the GUI (Score:2)
Re:birthday?? (Score:2)
Believer : Jesus died for our sins.
Non-believer: Jesus lied for our sins ... three days later he was up and about again.
Re:It required DR-DOS to NOT work (Score:2)
If you wonder where the anti-Microsoft FUD comes from, it comes from people like me who still remember this stuff.
You don't remember as well as you think you do... read the article you linked to. That code was not present in the production release.
Re:It required DR-DOS to NOT work (Score:2)
The code was present but disabled.
Yes, I know it was 3.1 and the article is 3.0. I was making a different point.
Re:It required DR-DOS to NOT work (Score:2)