On 2023-11-13 21:41, Fokke Nauta wrote:
> On 11/11/2023 03:08, Joel Crump wrote:
>> On 11/10/2023 7:01 PM, 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
>>>
>>> Microsoft Windows just hit a major milestone — its 40th birthday.
>>
>>
>> I don't count anything before 3.x.  But that's a hell of a long time,
>> I was 13, 18 when 95 hit.  But I stood in line at Egghead Software to
>> buy Windows 95 on CD-ROM media, introducing the now-familiar product key.
>>
>
> Well, I can count something before Windows.
> MS. Dos, and before that CP/M.
>
> But, indeed, Windows started with 3. It was wonderfull in these days!

No, it was not wonderful, it was a pain in the ass.

It crashed often and you lost work.

It was a pain to get the disk to work in 32 bit mode. Throw a dice was
as likely to work.

There was dll hell.

When you installed something, you had to light an incense bar and dance
around the computer in circles three times chanting secrets incantations.

As a programmer, you needed a list of functions in the API, plus a list
of the secret functions.

And you needed to buy several thick computer magazines to learn about
things and be able to brag in front of your pals or coworkers.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 14:40:57 +0100, Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl>
wrote:

>On 14/11/2023 03:29, Joel wrote:
>> Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2023 03:08, Joel Crump wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2023 7:01 PM, ? Good Guy ? wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft Windows just hit a major milestone — its 40th birthday.
>>>>
>>>> I don't count anything before 3.x.  But that's a hell of a long time, I
>>>> was 13, 18 when 95 hit.  But I stood in line at Egghead Software to buy
>>>> Windows 95 on CD-ROM media, introducing the now-familiar product key.
>>>
>>> Well, I can count something before Windows.
>>> MS. Dos, and before that CP/M.
>>
>>
>> I had CP/M for an Apple II system. We had all kinds of floppy disks
>> of stuff.
>
>Yes, those were the days of the floppy disks!
>>
>>
>>> But, indeed, Windows started with 3. It was wonderfull in these days!
>>
>>
>> Win2.x was cool, but never really had enough of a foothold in the
>> market, 3.x was an unbelievable and venerable success, and 95 through
>> Me thrived as successors, with XP finally merging home and business
>> use (along with a major Win2000 service pack that made it equally
>> functional as a 9x upgrade).
>
>Never realized that there was a Windows version 2.
>I always thought that after DOS, Windows 3 was the first version.

There was a Windows 1 and a Windows 2.

On 11/14/2023 8:26 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> For me, anything that switched from cooperative multitasking
>> to preemptive multitasking, was night and day difference on
>> reliability.
>
> I/'we' already did/used preemptive multitasking in the (very) early
> 70s, just not on 'PC's! :-)
>
> First (HP) RTE (Real-Time Executive) and (by others) MPE
> (Multi-Programming Executive) and then UNIX (HP-UX).
>
> For the adminstrative tasks, mainly tracking of technical customer
> support calls, we used (MS) Windows systems. Luckily, I started with
> Windows NT, etc., so non of the preemptive multitasking stuff.
>
> Privately, I mainly use some form of DOS (MS-DOS and DR DOS), if
> needed with some kind of taskswitcher/multitasker. Use of Windows
> (1.x/2.x/3.x) was minimal.
>
>> With cooperative multitasking (which doesn't leave the OS "in control"),
>> boxes would crash or misbehave once or twice a day. The experience
>> was only as good as the least-reliable software running at the time.
>>
>> With preemptive multitasking (WinNT/Win2K/WinXP...), it was finally
>> a real OS.

We used to do DTP on a Mac (like Mac System 7), the box would
crash half way through the morning (cooperative multitasking),
you would then use "g Finder" to jump to the Finder, and once
in a while, you could recover your edits, then reboot the machine.
The better you were at MacsBug, the more "reliable" your morning would be.

You know you're using quality OSes, when you are infinitely familiar
with the debugger.

We had Unix boxes at the time, but there wasn't always a DTP to use.
There might have been Interleaf, but because we never seemed to have
a copy, there wasn't much chance of promoting its usage. In fact, our
Unix boxes (for CAD work) were a software ghetto. You should have seen what
I went through, to get my first browser (and then, have it taken away).
We used Lynx when we needed to visit the web, on those machines. Ugh!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interleaf

Someone in the audience, has seen this :-/ The hell that is Lynx.
I'm sure Facebook supports this browser. It even had cookies added to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_%28web_browser%29#/media/File:Lynx-wikipedia.png

Paul

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-11-14 14:40, Fokke Nauta wrote:
> > On 14/11/2023 03:29, Joel wrote:
> >> Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Never realized that there was a Windows version 2.
> > I always thought that after DOS, Windows 3 was the first version.
>
> The first one that was usable enough.

Well, some smart Dutch guy managed quite well with 1.0, but perhaps
that's a temperament thing, it's much colder here! :-)

Just kidding! I didn't do all that much with 1.0, nor with my
'illegal' copy of 2.x. I bought the 386 version of 1.0, but had more
success with the 286 version (on my 640KB+1MB system).

Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote:

>>> But, indeed, Windows started with 3. It was wonderfull in these days!
>>
>> Win2.x was cool, but never really had enough of a foothold in the
>> market, 3.x was an unbelievable and venerable success, and 95 through
>> Me thrived as successors, with XP finally merging home and business
>> use (along with a major Win2000 service pack that made it equally
>> functional as a 9x upgrade).
>
>Never realized that there was a Windows version 2.
>I always thought that after DOS, Windows 3 was the first version.

The 3.0 release was much more impacting, but 2.x had the same basic
features interface-wise, if not having any 32-bit features, but even
Win95 retained a lot of 16-bit code, it wasn't until Win98 that they
made it 32-bit to the maximum extent possible.

--
Joel W. Crump

On 2023-11-14 16:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-14 14:40, Fokke Nauta wrote:
>>> On 14/11/2023 03:29, Joel wrote:
>>>> Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Never realized that there was a Windows version 2.
>>> I always thought that after DOS, Windows 3 was the first version.
>>
>> The first one that was usable enough.
>
> Well, some smart Dutch guy managed quite well with 1.0, but perhaps
> that's a temperament thing, it's much colder here! :-)
>
> Just kidding! I didn't do all that much with 1.0, nor with my
> 'illegal' copy of 2.x. I bought the 386 version of 1.0, but had more
> success with the 286 version (on my 640KB+1MB system).

I tried something that said "windows" but all it did after some time was
to paint a logo. My machine was a plain 8086.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-11-14 15:22, Paul wrote:
> On 11/14/2023 8:26 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>> [...]

> We had Unix boxes at the time, but there wasn't always a DTP to use.
> There might have been Interleaf, but because we never seemed to have
> a copy, there wasn't much chance of promoting its usage. In fact, our
> Unix boxes (for CAD work) were a software ghetto. You should have seen what
> I went through, to get my first browser (and then, have it taken away).
> We used Lynx when we needed to visit the web, on those machines. Ugh!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interleaf
>
> Someone in the audience, has seen this :-/ The hell that is Lynx.
> I'm sure Facebook supports this browser. It even had cookies added to it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_%28web_browser%29#/media/File:Lynx-wikipedia.png

I use lynx now and then. For instance, when trying a suspicious link.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-11-14 16:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2023-11-14 14:40, Fokke Nauta wrote:
> >>> On 14/11/2023 03:29, Joel wrote:
> >>>> Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> Never realized that there was a Windows version 2.
> >>> I always thought that after DOS, Windows 3 was the first version.
> >>
> >> The first one that was usable enough.
> >
> > Well, some smart Dutch guy managed quite well with 1.0, but perhaps
> > that's a temperament thing, it's much colder here! :-)
> >
> > Just kidding! I didn't do all that much with 1.0, nor with my
> > 'illegal' copy of 2.x. I bought the 386 version of 1.0, but had more
> > success with the 286 version (on my 640KB+1MB system).
>
> I tried something that said "windows" but all it did after some time was
> to paint a logo. My machine was a plain 8086.

I had a blazingly fast - no less than 16MHz - 386 and a DX one at
that, not such a cheap lowly SX! :-)

32 bits data *and* address width, not just the measly 24 address width
of the SX! (Heavens knows why that would be important, but some people
are easily impressed and as a consequence pay thtough the nose! :-))

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386>

Picture of the/my beast (but the SX version):

'HP Vectra QS/16s'
<https://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=222>

On 2023-11-14 20:33, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-14 16:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-11-14 14:40, Fokke Nauta wrote:
>>>>> On 14/11/2023 03:29, Joel wrote:
>>>>>> Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Never realized that there was a Windows version 2.
>>>>> I always thought that after DOS, Windows 3 was the first version.
>>>>
>>>> The first one that was usable enough.
>>>
>>> Well, some smart Dutch guy managed quite well with 1.0, but perhaps
>>> that's a temperament thing, it's much colder here! :-)
>>>
>>> Just kidding! I didn't do all that much with 1.0, nor with my
>>> 'illegal' copy of 2.x. I bought the 386 version of 1.0, but had more
>>> success with the 286 version (on my 640KB+1MB system).
>>
>> I tried something that said "windows" but all it did after some time was
>> to paint a logo. My machine was a plain 8086.
>
> I had a blazingly fast - no less than 16MHz - 386 and a DX one at
> that, not such a cheap lowly SX! :-)

On the 80's, I had an 8086. On 1991 I had a 386SX.

> 32 bits data *and* address width, not just the measly 24 address width
> of the SX! (Heavens knows why that would be important, but some people
> are easily impressed and as a consequence pay thtough the nose! :-))
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386>
>
> Picture of the/my beast (but the SX version):
>
> 'HP Vectra QS/16s'
> <https://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=222>

Oh, an HP! :)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-11-14 20:33, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2023-11-14 16:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-11-14 14:40, Fokke Nauta wrote:
> >>>>> On 14/11/2023 03:29, Joel wrote:
> >>>>>> Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>> Never realized that there was a Windows version 2.
> >>>>> I always thought that after DOS, Windows 3 was the first version.
> >>>>
> >>>> The first one that was usable enough.
> >>>
> >>> Well, some smart Dutch guy managed quite well with 1.0, but perhaps
> >>> that's a temperament thing, it's much colder here! :-)
> >>>
> >>> Just kidding! I didn't do all that much with 1.0, nor with my
> >>> 'illegal' copy of 2.x. I bought the 386 version of 1.0, but had more
> >>> success with the 286 version (on my 640KB+1MB system).
> >>
> >> I tried something that said "windows" but all it did after some time was
> >> to paint a logo. My machine was a plain 8086.
> >
> > I had a blazingly fast - no less than 16MHz - 386 and a DX one at
> > that, not such a cheap lowly SX! :-)
>
> On the 80's, I had an 8086. On 1991 I had a 386SX.

I got my 386DX in June 1989 (just checked the invoice).

> > 32 bits data *and* address width, not just the measly 24 address width
> > of the SX! (Heavens knows why that would be important, but some people
> > are easily impressed and as a consequence pay thtough the nose! :-))
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386>
> >
> > Picture of the/my beast (but the SX version):
> >
> > 'HP Vectra QS/16s'
> > <https://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=222>
>
> Oh, an HP! :)

Yes, I worked for HP. The list price of the system (hardware and
software) was some Dfl 26,000 (some 12,000 Euro *without* inflation). I
got a big employee discount and tax advantage, otherwise I of course
couldn't/wouldn't afford it. IIRC, after all deductions, it was still
some Dfl 5,000. Heh, it is (was) only money! :-)

On 2023-11-15 12:24, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-14 20:33, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-11-14 16:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-11-14 14:40, Fokke Nauta wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/11/2023 03:29, Joel wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote:

....

>>>> I tried something that said "windows" but all it did after some time was
>>>> to paint a logo. My machine was a plain 8086.
>>>
>>> I had a blazingly fast - no less than 16MHz - 386 and a DX one at
>>> that, not such a cheap lowly SX! :-)
>>
>> On the 80's, I had an 8086. On 1991 I had a 386SX.
>
> I got my 386DX in June 1989 (just checked the invoice).
>
>>> 32 bits data *and* address width, not just the measly 24 address width
>>> of the SX! (Heavens knows why that would be important, but some people
>>> are easily impressed and as a consequence pay thtough the nose! :-))
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386>
>>>
>>> Picture of the/my beast (but the SX version):
>>>
>>> 'HP Vectra QS/16s'
>>> <https://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=222>
>>
>> Oh, an HP! :)
>
> Yes, I worked for HP. The list price of the system (hardware and
> software) was some Dfl 26,000 (some 12,000 Euro *without* inflation). I
> got a big employee discount and tax advantage, otherwise I of course
> couldn't/wouldn't afford it. IIRC, after all deductions, it was still
> some Dfl 5,000. Heh, it is (was) only money! :-)

Ah, so you cheated :-p

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 11/11/2023 02:08, Joel Crump wrote:
> On 11/10/2023 7:01 PM, 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
>>
>> Microsoft Windows just hit a major milestone — its 40th birthday.
>
>
> I don't count anything before 3.x.  But that's a hell of a long time, I
> was 13, 18 when 95 hit.  But I stood in line at Egghead Software to buy
> Windows 95 on CD-ROM media, introducing the now-familiar product key.

I can remember Windows 3. I thought it had already come out before I
started a new job in 1989, but Wikipedia says it was launched in 1990.

I did try installing Windows 286 on one of my early PCs. Would it had
run on an 8086-based PC (not sure how much memory)? Maybe I installed it
on my next PC, with an 80286 processor. Either way, it ran like a
wounded snail :-(

Windows 95 was the first "modern" version of Windows, the ancestor in UI
terms of all subsequent versions. Was it the first one to be an
operating system in its own right, without the need to boot to DOS and
then start Windows from there?

On 2023-11-17 00:26, NY wrote:
> On 11/11/2023 02:08, Joel Crump wrote:
>> On 11/10/2023 7:01 PM, 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
>>>
>>> Microsoft Windows just hit a major milestone — its 40th birthday.
>>
>>
>> I don't count anything before 3.x.  But that's a hell of a long time,
>> I was 13, 18 when 95 hit.  But I stood in line at Egghead Software to
>> buy Windows 95 on CD-ROM media, introducing the now-familiar product key.
>
> I can remember Windows 3. I thought it had already come out before I
> started a new job in 1989, but Wikipedia says it was launched in 1990.
>
> I did try installing Windows 286 on one of my early PCs. Would it had
> run on an 8086-based PC (not sure how much memory)? Maybe I installed it
> on my next PC, with an 80286 processor. Either way, it ran like a
> wounded snail :-(
>
> Windows 95 was the first "modern" version of Windows, the ancestor in UI
> terms of all subsequent versions. Was it the first one to be an
> operating system in its own right, without the need to boot to DOS and
> then start Windows from there?

It still used some interrupts from the BIOS, so not everything was 32
bits and could access all the memory. The work was not finished yet.

You could make it boot in DOS mode, directly. Some people used this
trick to run MsDOS programs with network.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.