Talk:Windows 1.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows 1.0 article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] LOL!

Lol, I have Windows 1.0 software and it still works!!!!!

For many versions, it was not possible to start a GUI program from a DOS window. As far as I recall, this wasn't possible until Windows 95, and required the "start" command to be used, eg. "start notepad.exe." Is that correct? Kufat 06:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Teh 1337ness! 02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

[edit] Substance of Windows 1.0

Windows 1 wasn't marketed as a "pretty DOS shell." It was actually a "graphics framework" which could make use of all the various incompatible video cards and input devices of the time when there was no de-facto standard for them. It was also available to developers as a 'runtime' version which they were allowed to ship with their apps. It was something comparable to DirectX of today much more than to Windows of today.

So, this is false:

  • Windows 1.0 was often regarded as a "front-end to the MS-DOS operating system" rather than a full-fledged operating system
  • It was neither a "front-end" nor a "full-blown OS". tyomitch 12:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
You're assuming we are saying that Microsoft regarded it as a "front-end." AlistairMcMillan 13:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I refer to 1.0-WFWG3.11 as "Not quite OSes, but DOS extenders". Maiq the liar (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 1.0 Logos

I've got some logos of Windows 1.0 cut out of its boxshots. I presume that they permit Fair Use as {{Logo}} (why is there no {{Softwarecover}})? The images are now located at this page, can someone choose which one would make a better addition to this article? I love them all, and it's hard for me to choose :-) tyomitch 11:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

In absence of any attention, I will now proceed to do the edits on my own. tyomitch 20:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have just added the box art of the Windows 1.0 family. I hope you guys like it. 02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

[edit] Details

"From the beginning, Windows was intended to multitask programs (although this originally only applied to native applications and for many versions the multitasking was non-preemptive), so Windows programs always had their own menu bar rather than switching a single menu bar at the top of the screen like Apple Macintoshes did."

Macintosh running System 5 onward used multitasking (cooperative). The anchored menu bar is a user interface choice. On the Mac, since several applications might be open but only one menu bar would be used at a time, a single anchored menu bar that automatically switched depending on the application environment would be a better use of screen space and allow more room in the windows.
There are some interesting documents out there about UI in MacOS and Windows. I'm going to change this line soon; it's important to point out that the difference in menu bars was a UI thing. Markmtl 17:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tone Down The Pro-Microsoft Tone

The article reads like a Microsoft press release, and has a very defensive feel.

It's a fanboy world out there... 02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

and now it reads exactly like a apple advertisement, it's a lose lose situation

[edit] Rumor of Windows 1.0

Windows 1.0 (not 1.01) was actually released, I can confirm that rumor, because I have a copy of it.

There was a big bug in the code so they withdrew the sales. The article says so. 02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

[edit] Computer Code

Anyone know where I can find out How they made Windows 1.0? I'm trying to make a multi tasking DOS program. Aeom Mai

I don't understand what you mean by "how." All I can say is that they programmed it... 02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

I would aslo liek to ,know how they did this. What language was it programmed in? I actualy heard a rumor it was programmed in GWBASIC (which is ridiculous because GWBASIC has no compiler, though there is a compiler for it known as BASCOM). So knowing what it was programmed in would be very usefull. The QBasicJedi 05:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it was coded in Assembly. — Wackymacs 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The core of Windows was coded in Assembler, just as Wackymacs said. However, the compiler was a C (not C++) compiler running on various Unix boxes. I remember this well, but I cannot find a source for it so I can't insert it into the article. Hey, should the article mention that it was Rowland Hanson that came up with the name "Windows"? --Tirolion 07:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failure or not?

It's recently been reverted in the article that Windows 1.0 was a failure. Personally, I'd say it was. It didn't penetrate the market how Microsoft wanted to, and it sold very poorly, people continued using DOS on the x86 platform for quite some time until Windows 3.0 and 3.11. In-fact, most people ignored Windows 1.0 and 2.0, they both sold very poorly and were shadowed by the Macintosh, until Microsoft finally got there with version 3.0 and 3.11. — Wackymacs 10:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the description of the category (Category:Failed Microsoft initiatives). That'll explain why I removed it. And are we talking about "initiatives" or "products", anyways? "Windows" as an initiative has certainly been a success... it just took them five to seven years to build that market (which isn't extraordinary). "Windows 1.0" as a product was not a success in the marketplace, but that doesn't make it a failed initiative, does it? It'd be like classifying OS X 10.0 as a failed Apple initiative, given its problems, which it subsequently outgrew, and now enjoys a great deal of success. -/- Warren 11:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it shouldn't be in that category. However, a sentence or two should be included in the article mentioning that Windows 1.0 itself as a product was a failure in terms of sales and market share, and that it was only until Windows 3 until Microsoft gained some significant market share and shook things up a bit. — Wackymacs 11:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

The treatment of Windows 1.0 as a "DOS front-end" fails to take into consideration that it was designed to be just a graphics environment used by applications, rather than a full-fledged operating system.

Uh, I think that's exactly why it was called a "DOS front-end": because it was not meant to be a full-fledged operating system, hence front-end. This needs to be reworded or just omitted. (The surrounding context does clarify what is intended, but the statement itself seems silly.) - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

can you beleve me, THIS IS NOT A NEW COMPUTER SYSTEM

Yes we believe you. Some of us were around at the time Win1 was released, would you believe? Be that as it may, many people have some problems understanding what an operating system is. The first Win version that could be called an "operating system" (with a pinch of salt) was Win3.1x, and an updated-out-of-recognition version at that. Updated with Win32S and WinG and whatnot Win3.1x did actually resemble an actual operating system (doing its' own disk access, memory management, screen operations, network access and such), with the glaring exception of still relying on the BIOS for I/O stuff. No versions of Windows™ prior to this can claim that. Oh yeah, by the by, sign your statements, no? --Tirolion 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 1.0x download

Is it possible to download Windows 1.0x from somewhere? Is it still copyright of Microsoft? ~~ Igor Filippov 08:24, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It is not downloadable. All Microsoft software is Copyright © Microsoft Corp, Ltd. M$ has released pretty much nothing to the public domain. --Tirolion 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Killer Apps

I updated the paragraphs about Aldus Pagemaker and the first 'killer apps' - apps that made you choose Windows over some other option. The remark that PageMaker 1.0 helped drive the Windows installation base was laughably incorrect (anyone in DTP then or now) would know that until version 4.0, Aldus treated PageMaker for Windows like a crazy relative locked in the basement (at least their Support would honestly admit this when facing document portability issues, among other problems). The PC was made valid for DTP by apps no one heard of at the time - Serif, Micrographx, Corel, and Harvard (remember Harvard Presentations?). These applications were followed the Microsoft model -- get something out the door (even if unpolished), and offer features you could not find anywhere else except for 4-6x the price point. This is why, although the Mac was a superior platform, the PC steadily won patient converts. It MAY be that a new paragraph for "applications" is needed, but I did not want to go too overboard with my edits, as I don't have a zillion karma here. :-)

Scottprive 00:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "windows" as a graphical novelty for Microsoft, catchup with Apple

I didn't find much information on the novelty, or competitive novelty, of the the multi-view graphical interface per se on the personal computer. In the article there seems to be much more on the product's coding, and use and history as code.

I mean, it was named Windows precisely for that functionality (and as an Apple killer?). I.e., it might have been called "Do It All", or something, if you get my point.

Non software-heads were equally interested in what they could see--although it was clear that that was a function of keeping tabs on applications running "simultaneously"--and some were interested in what they knew as a titanic battle between the two companies.

Anyway, perhaps others more knowledgeable than I could add something on this.

Best,

--Shlishke (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)