Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Windows 3.0 Is 20 Years Today

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the great-platform-for-playing-jeopardy dept.

Microsoft 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bing is following Google's lead (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307168)

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 (4, Funny)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307270)

And if you'd formatted your link correctly, even other people could have visited it.

Re:Bing is following Google's lead (4, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307322)

Actually OPs link is quite apt, in that it doesn't work :)

Win 3.1 emulator (5, Interesting)

complacence (214847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307418)

Try this one [michaelv.org] .

Re:Win 3.1 emulator (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307450)

3.11 - 3.1 doesn't work in his calculator. It isn't Windows 3, then.

Re:Win 3.1 emulator (2, Interesting)

complacence (214847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307486)

True. It's more a look & feel simulation than a true emulator.

Re:Win 3.1 emulator (0, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307578)

It's more a demonstration that HTML/Javascript-based application delivery is still more messy than that of a 20 year old native GUI.

Re:Bing is following Google's lead (3, Funny)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307290)

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 (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307844)

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 (2, Interesting)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308160)

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 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308172)

In honor of this occasion, I might have to pull out my old install disks and run it in dosbox. Perhaps even on my phone. But, I won't because I doubt that either Google or HTC will pay for the warranty repairs should my phone burst into flames.

Re:Bing is following Google's lead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307300)

What? There's no such thing. Windows 3.0 didn't have sound either.

Does it work with... (2, Funny)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307378)

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... (1)

InfoJunkie777 (1435969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308324)

I don't want to start a flame war, but can someone tell me when windows is going to support a one button mouse?

Please explain, why is this important. I believe, from my experience, that THREE buttons are better, or at least, two buttons and a wheel. I use the wheel all the time to scroll my pages, and use the left hand button for "context sensitive" commands (basically shortcuts).

Re:Bing is following Google's lead (4, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307442)

So you're saying that we went from PacMan to WIndows 3.0 in only 9 years, 364 days? Wow, that seemed to fly past.

Re:Bing is following Google's lead (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307776)

If you visit Bing [slashdot.org] you can run a Windows 3.0 emulator written in Javascript. Even has sound.

Is that the one where a yellow MS employee gobbles up silver dollars out of every PC sale and is chased by Open Source advocates unless it swallows a Patent Power-Up?

F*ck Microsoft. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307186)

F*ck Microsoft.

Re:F*ck Microsoft. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307304)

Oh, that is soo last decade. Now it's F*ck the Cloud!

Worked for PacMan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307202)

Where's the interactive Google doodle?

Today... (1)

Codename Dutchess (1782238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307226)

I shall play some Ski Free to celebrate.

It was more fun than 3.11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307254)

I do appreciate 3.0 much more than it's successor, 3.11. Paint was better.

More importantly... (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307256)

My teenage angst had to be fueled by something. Windows 3.0 was useful for that, but not as much as this, which incidentally occurred on the same exact day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEXKOR5Oepo [youtube.com]

Re:More importantly... (4, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307872)

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... (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308020)

Haha. Too True.

I remember.... (3, Interesting)

jolyonr (560227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307258)

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.... (3, Insightful)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307334)

So an overtly advertised secret booth? Sounds like MS alright ;)

Re:I remember.... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307694)

>>>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.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307956)

>>> It was a crappy, shitty OS.

No, it was a crappy, shitty GUI.

Re:I remember.... (1)

jolyonr (560227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308002)

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.... (2)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308212)

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.... (1)

iJusten (1198359) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308124)

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.... (1)

InfoJunkie777 (1435969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308352)

Absolutely correct.

Re:I remember.... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308326)

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 (5, Funny)

clinko (232501) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307262)

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 (1)

Bitmanhome (254112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308286)

On my computer, you typed "lose" to Win.

Much better article on the subject (3, Interesting)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307274)

by me in PCMag.... [pcmag.com]

Re:Much better article on the subject (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307966)

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.

NO NO NO NO NO (1)

skyggen (888902) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307280)

Windows 3.0 is NOT 20. Microsoft "END OF LIFE"d that product. It died. You can says its been 20 years since it was released. If you kill a product it does not get another birthday.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307366)

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 (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307688)

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 (1)

jeremyp (130771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307826)

Nobody announces how old Windows 3.0 is every year either.

dr-dos? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307306)

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)

Windows 3.1 was more significant (3, Informative)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307308)

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 (3, Interesting)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307398)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307542)

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 (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307820)

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 (4, Interesting)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307986)

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 (1)

ImNotAtWork (1375933) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307568)

A certain amusement park still used Windows 3.1 with some AMX/Panja touch screens to control it's audio for parades. This was back in 2002 but I didn't foresee them changing anything anytime soon.

Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307876)

I had an Amiga A1200 in college. It would send the fonts as images, so I got deskjet quality out of my uber-cheap dot-matrix. Of course it only printed a page a minute, so I would start it printing and finish getting ready for class. By the time I was done, it was, too :-)

Good times!

Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308144)

Me as well! My roomie had an A500 though and consistently had to use my computer as Final Writer would Guru Meditation after two to three pages. I remember making a makeshift sound booth for the 24 pin epson I had...Had a color ribbon too-I could actually do pictures in my papers. Ah, memories!

Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308230)

My main printer was broken and until I fixed it I had to use a very old dot matrix printer (Robotron CM6329.01M). The printer is very slow in graphics mode and Windows always use it, so it was 5, 10 or 15 minutes per page, depending on quality.

I still use the printer when I need to print on small pieces of paper (small envelope, CD cover) because the main printer has problems with those.

Re:Windows 3.1 was more significant (1)

InfoJunkie777 (1435969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308396)

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.

It was okay for some things. I even used Wordstar 5.1 in DOS before that to do some DTP. But the "high-end" stuff was always Apple, because of the better output options. That used to be true, but these days many shops use Apple and MS equally.

birthday?? (1)

zcold (916632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307338)

You don't celebrate birthdays for things that are no longer alive...

Re:birthday?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307466)

Im still using MS DOS you insensitive clot!

Re:birthday?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307492)

Jesus would like a word.

Re:birthday?? (1)

Fett101 (810894) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307592)

Except Christians believe that the dead thing was temporary and he is alive.

Re:birthday?? (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308092)

Believer : Jesus died for our sins.

Non-believer: Jesus lied for our sins ... three days later he was up and about again.

Ah yes (4, Insightful)

msgmonkey (599753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307358)

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.

Re:Ah yes (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307676)

Fixed-that-for-you-dept: The version of Windows that made you wish your 286 was a 386 because now there was more you could do with your computer. ...just like any state-of-the-art game we've bought since.

Yeah, yeah, sure -- I completely understand the load of that clumsy GUI got in the way Productive Applications we'd run happily in DOS. I was there. I even remember debate over CRT versus paper scroll output. The history of software release is littered with cries of "OMG Pony! Want!" followed by a cloud of griping that the requisite stable did not materialize for free.

There are so many valid complaints to be made about Win3, but to complain that it required hardware that could handle the extra load of a fully utilized GUI? C'mon. You're not _really_ remembering yet. You're still blocking out the anguish. Lean back in your chair, close your eyes. It's 1990. Your desk is covered with expensive 3.5" floppy disks. Your coffee has gone cold, and your coke, flat. You can hear the fan of the computer. You are beginning to realize that your friends with Amigas and Macs are still going to be laughing at you tomorrow...

Windows 3.0 Sucked! (5, Funny)

lloydsmart (962848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307432)

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! (1, Funny)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308098)

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.

Are You Ready, Google? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307478)

Okay, Google. I want to see a running Win3.0 logo on your home page by Sunday. If you can do that great Pacman/Ms. Pacman, I know I can see File Manager running there next.

"First truly successful windows" (0, Flamebait)

gavron (1300111) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307480)

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.

Re:"First truly successful windows" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307596)

It says "The first truly successful Windows operating system". That wouldn't make sense as a description of window-based GUI systems in general, and the capital W makes it extra-obvious what as meant.

Re:"First truly successful windows" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307606)

You seem to have overlooked the capital "W" in Windows dipshit.

Re:"First truly successful windows" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307624)

You managed to misquote "The first truly successful Windows..." fragment 3 times, and yet still failed to understand the significance of the capital 'W'.

Re:"First truly successful windows" (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308310)

Maybe he was trying to make a point that "Windows" is a general word and not able to be trademarked, whereas "Microsoft Windows" is trademarked. Either that or he needs better reading comprehension. Not really sure.

Re:"First truly successful windows" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307650)

yea where's lisa and amiga now?

apple is reduced to a consumer gadget company making shiny ass wipers, and the commies died 2 decades ago

maybe your measure of success is wrong

Re:"First truly successful windows" (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307706)

http://www.morphos-team.net/ [morphos-team.net] http://aros.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] http://os4.hyperion-entertainment.biz/ [hyperion-e...inment.biz] Some light reading. Of course I am not suggesting that they are leading the pack anymore, but they are not dead. I'm also not going to beat the drum of monopolistic business practice that was the true hallmark of MS success, as we all know this to be the case.

Re:"First truly successful windows" (0, Troll)

gavron (1300111) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307780)

Yeah where's that windows 3.0? *LOL!* You windows fanbois are hilarious :) E

Re:"First truly successful windows" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307654)

You're misquoting the OP. It's not "the first truly successful windows", but "the first truly successful Windows (tm)".

Re:"First truly successful windows" (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307658)

Some of us weirdos still use amiga hardware and/or OS...

Re:"First truly successful windows" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307672)

I think he meant that 3.0 was the first version of Windows to be successful. Not that 3.0 was the first successful GUI. It was Microsoft's first successful GUI.

Re:"First truly successful windows" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307686)

A joke that captured 90% of the market. Where is Amiga now by the way?

Re:"First truly successful windows" (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307750)

Read my previous post.

Re:"First truly successful windows" (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307740)

"Windows" is a Microsoft product. Windowing OSes aren't. The Win 3.0 line was the first widespread success MS had in the "Windows" OS, before that MS-DOS was more common.

Reading comprehension FAIL! (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307764)

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 (2, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308424)

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" (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307922)

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" (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307934)

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" (2, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308134)

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).

Re:"First truly successful windows" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308336)

I was under the impression that "everyone" who had a computer had an Amiga in Sweden at the time. Many friends had one and I've had a few. And if people didn't have an Amiga, they had an Atari.

Re:"First truly successful windows" (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308026)

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.

I guess this means... (1)

Erinnys Tisiphone (1627695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307558)

I guess this means its time for me to throw out that copy of 2.1x I kept in the original box, eh? Then again, its my only means to prove Ventura Publisher existed.

Re:I guess this means... (1)

InfoJunkie777 (1435969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308450)

I guess this means its time for me to throw out that copy of 2.1x I kept in the original box, eh? Then again, its my only means to prove Ventura Publisher existed.

I remember I had a copy of Windows 2.1 bundled with a "shareware" copy of Word (what version, I don't remember). I had a 286 at the time. It took like 8 minutes for Windows to boot up, and typing was arduous. I decided WIndows was not ready for prime time. DOS 3.3 was working quite well for me. Liked that version. Fast! Later, when Windows 3.11 came out (business edition) I started using it.

leading the GUI (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307572)

Microsoft has really lead the way in the easy to use GUI. Windows 3.0 really was the first good GUI and now that we at 7 we can see where they started and where they ended up. Windows has really lead the way in the progression of the GUI and they've done it well.

Re:leading the GUI (1)

Game_Ender (815505) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307746)

What about the Mac in 1984, with its mouse driven GUI? Even Windows 7 borrows quite a bit from Mac OS X.

Re:leading the GUI (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307792)

Windows 7 might of borrowed a bunch from OS X but then again OS X borrowed from FreeBSD. I personally think the Windows 7 GUI is a step forward in the modern GUI.

Re:leading the GUI (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32307994)

OS X didn't borrow any GUI from FreeBSD. You're confusing the UI and the underlying OS services. The UI came from NextSTEP. And, by the way, Apple invented some of the key features of modern GUIs: overlapping windows, pull-down (non-modal) menus, dialog boxes all were invented for the Mac and/or Lisa.

Re:leading the GUI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32308062)

You're confusing the UI and the underlying OS services. The UI came from NextSTEP.

I think it's funny to hear people claim Apple stole the Dock from the Windows Taskbar.

The Dock was there in NEXTSTEP years before Windows 95 came out!

Re:leading the GUI (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308304)

I never said the GUI was from FreeBSD. I find the MAC OS interface horrible, it's a completely personal opinion but I've never been able to use it efficiently. If you want to be more correct most of the GUI enhancements came from the Open Source world and filtered down.

Re:leading the GUI (1)

blau (759804) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308170)

Lolwut? Are you a MS employee or just really confused?

Re:leading the GUI (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308374)

I'm actually a pure Linux user lol , but you have to admit Windows 7 has a damn nice look to it. I'm personally a big gnome supporter / developer but you have to admit the thing Windows has always had to sell above all else was it's Graphics.

Windows 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307586)

20 years TOO old.

Yours In Smolensk,
K. T.

Alley Thugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307612)

Also known as the day the bowels of Hell opened and the Alley Thugs spilled out. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20005581-92.html [cnet.com]

Seriously, anyone who has had the displeasure of working directly with the upper personnel of that company knows exactly what I am talking about.

Where do they find their rogue's gallery of thuggish jerks? Is there some code word or something in their job advertisements that attracts such scummy people?

ma8.e (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32307668)

to yet another Another special

Boy did I read that wrong! (1)

cliffiecee (136220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308038)

I read the title as "Microsoft Windows 8.0 Is 20 Years Away"

(and I wasn't even very surprised...)

Google logo (2, Funny)

lurker412 (706164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32308064)

To celebrate, Google will change their logo to one which crashes your machine when you click on it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?