http://www.osnews.com/story/12777/Windows_a_Family_History Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2010, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:06:47 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread?64562 http://osnews.com/thread?64562 What's up with that comment anyway?

Seriously though, ruling Netscape out in 1995 is extremely premature. Netscape didn't really die until around 1999; a year after they started the rewrite, and a year before the rewrite was even usable!

I really think they kill Netscape off too early, it had a lot of fans for a few years after IE. And I don't think Microsoft considered it dead until they released IE 6.0; since that was the last release of IE for a long time . Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ma_d) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64582 http://osnews.com/thread?64582 www.levenez.com

Windows and UNIX family histories - he has much better info Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mini-me) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64585 http://osnews.com/thread?64585 Reading through that gives me a strange mix of feelings, from what could have been to warm and fuzzy familiarity. That's a no-brainer. What's bugging me is the bloat and focus of OS development. OS/X, Windows, and Linux all suffer from this, to some extent. I'd like to see some thoughts as to what a back to basics OS might deliver and, perhaps, whether a different way of thinking might be more useful. Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64596 http://osnews.com/thread?64596 The amount of factual mistakes in this article is astounding! I'll try and correct some:
1. Windows 1.0 was NOT called "MS-DOS Executive", that was the name of the shell, also used in Windows 2.
2. Windows 1.0 did support custom colour schemes, dispite this articles assertion to the contrary.
3. Windows 1.0 did have icons, although they were only ever used to represent minimized apps, Windows 2 used them in exactly the same way, but added titles under the icons.
4. 80286 a mistake? No, it was the evolutionary step between the 8086/8088/80186 (which were all essentially the same) and the 80386. It introduced 16-bit protected mode, allowing up to 16MB of RAM.
5. Windows/386 was actually Windows 2.11 and only introduced what was later called "standard mode", the ability to run in 16-bit protected mode and use up to 16MB of RAM.
6. WIN32.DLL was just a helper DLL for calculation-only 32-bit software. As Windows 1-3 were co-operatively multitasked, there was nothing to stop apps from switching to 32-bit mode, as long as they switched back before releasing the CPU. WIN32.DLL just included a few functions to make this switching easier.
7. Windows 3.1 was still rubbish at gaming. I believe the reference to "Guns, rockets, plasma bolts" is probably referring to ID's Doom, but you still had to quit Windows to run Doom (and vitually every other game except Minesweeper and Solitare).
8. DR-DOS was never open-sourced. It became Novel-DOS, then "Open"DOS I believe still owned by Caldera.
9. Windows 95 was not a stand-alone OS, it just included MS-DOS, rather than requiring it to be bought seperately.
10. Windows 95 did not have animated characters, these debuted with Office 97 and did not become part of Windows until XP.
11. DOS is not "still there" in XP. There is a DOS-like command line shell (cmd.exe) and a DOS-emulator. Both of these are Windows programs. Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64599 http://osnews.com/thread?64599 i thought it was a history of windows, Windows NT hardly got a mention, 3.5, 3.51, 4, 2k and XP. And what about the server products. Seems that the author got through the begining and then couldn't be bothered to finish the artical off. Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64601 http://osnews.com/thread?64601 I remember well the term "Windows Game." Which generally referred to a cheesy board game which needed Windows to run. Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ma_d) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64606 http://osnews.com/thread?64606 what a crap article Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64621 http://osnews.com/thread?64621 like say skyos? Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (hobgoblin) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64623 http://osnews.com/thread?64623 i recall there being two packages for windows 3.1/3.11 around the time of win95. these two where known as win32 and wing. combined it allowed some win95 apps to run under win 3.1/.11 from what i recall (alltho it often made a mess of things.

this could lead to the comment your refering to in 7.

i had win 3.11 installed but i rarely used it. gaming was done in dos. only when someone else in the family wanted to use the computer for something was windows ever fired up. it was kinda nice being able to drop out of windows and get a clean shell without the need for a reboot like in win95.

maybe thats what i like about linux. it reminds me of the modularity of dos+early windows? Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (hobgoblin) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64662 http://osnews.com/thread?64662 Windows NT 3.1, the first 32-bit version of Windows, was a VERY important release because it showed both business users and PC hobbyists that Microsoft could actually release a stable 32-bit version of Windows.

Even though Windows NT 3.1 had very poor DOS support and still used the Windows 3.1 desktop (i.e., the old Program Manager and File Manager), there were still a fairly large number of folks who wanted to move ahead API-wise and who were willing to move to 32-bit software right away even with NT's weak desktop UI.

Even though many PC hobbists moved to OS/2 2.0 or 2.1 from Windows 3.1 in 1992 and 1993, quite a few also moved directly from Win 3.1 to NT 3.1 when it was finally released (some waiting for NT from the start, others moving to NT from OS/2), and the initial battle lines that existed in various online communities between the OS/2 and Windows folks in the 1992-1995 timeframe were mainly between the OS/2 and NT folks.

Windows 95 (aka "Chicago") wasn't released until the second half of 1995, and by then both NT and OS/2 had seen another new version, and most NT and OS/2 fokks also understood that Windows 95 was an architectural compromise (to be kind).

I'm really disappointed that the author of the article skimmed over this stuff. Between 1992 or so and 1995, the only "serious" Windows variant out there (from a hobbyist perspective) was Windows NT. Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rcsteiner) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64664 http://osnews.com/thread?64664 How sad that a decade later people are still repeating the lie that Windows 95 does not include DOS. Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64668 http://osnews.com/thread?64668 11. To be fair XP does not require DOS, it just supports it. AFAIK this support is finally dumped in XP 64Bit. There is still a CMD shell but that is not DOS. Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64761 http://osnews.com/thread?64761 I think you are referring to Win32s and WinG.
Win32s was set of DLLs that implemented a cut-down version of the Win32 API used in NT and allowed for full 32-bit apps in 3.x (just about).
WinG was an early attempt at more direct access to the graphics hardware, the precursor of DirectX, but was only used by a tiny selection of games and multimedia apps and only became available in about 1994.
Win32s was semi-useful though, it included a version of FreeCell and allowed the Windows 95 calculator to run on 3.x as well as a smallish amount of 3rd party apps. It was sorta like Carbon on the MacOS, which allows apps to run natively on both 9 and X as long as they follow use only a fairly restricted set of APIs. Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64845 http://osnews.com/thread?64845 It contains so many flaws.

Especially the one with Windows 9X not containing DOS.

Windows 9X was nothing special compared with DOS 6.22 + WfW 3.11.

Windows95 was DOS 7.00 + Windows 4.00
Windows98 was DOS 7.10 + Windows 4.10
WindowsME was DOS 8.00 (I believe) + Windows 4.90

And besides that DOS is still included with NT in the sense that NT ships with a crude DOS emulator. This is also true for Win2K3 Server. However, I prefer to use DOSBox for running DOS-applications (OpenGEM / Project Liberation). Sat, 26 Nov 2005 05:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64846 http://osnews.com/thread?64846 Or Syllable OS, Haiku, Amiga OS, Aros and MorphOS.

But I agree with the bloatedness of Windows, Mac OS X and GNU/Linux, though Linux isn't harmed so much, if you compile your system in a wise manner. Sat, 26 Nov 2005 05:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64883 http://osnews.com/thread?64883 Windows 9X was nothing special compared with DOS 6.22 + WfW 3.11.

While you're right about Windows 9x still including and still requiring DOS, this statement is ignoring the significant progress that was made with Windows 95 compared to 3.11, most importantly preemptive multitasking, a 32-bit kernel and 32-bit drivers.

It also protected application's memory from each other, but stupidly it did not protect the system's memory from applications, which lead to Win9x's infamous instability.

DOS was only used to start the kernel, provide legacy drivers, and support DOS software compatibility (mostly games). Sat, 26 Nov 2005 07:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (nimble) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64944 http://osnews.com/thread?64944 sounds about right, its been years and i was young at that point. only reason i ran into it was because of some game demo i wanted to try... Sat, 26 Nov 2005 15:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (hobgoblin) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?64948 http://osnews.com/thread?64948 thats whats make linux so nice. you can strip it down to just the kernel, a cli and nothing else.

maybe you can do the same with the darwin kernel that one use in osx, but isnt the gui the very reason why people use osx? Sat, 26 Nov 2005 16:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (hobgoblin) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?65141 http://osnews.com/thread?65141 > Windows95 was DOS 7.00 + Windows 4.00
> Windows98 was DOS 7.10 + Windows 4.10
> WindowsME was DOS 8.00 (I believe) + Windows 4.90

Yep. I believe you're right. Furthermore:

Windows 2K is 5.0
Windows XP is 5.1
Windows 64 is 5.2
Windows Vista is 6.0 AFAIK Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (eivind) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?65284 http://osnews.com/thread?65284 Furthermore:

Windows 2K is 5.0
Windows XP is 5.1
Windows 64 is 5.2
Windows Vista is 6.0 AFAIK


No, that's a different series of Windows versions, namely the NT series with its properly protected and DOS-less kernel. Earlier versions were NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0, so some of them clash with the DOS-based version numbers.

WinME and Win2K still came out at about the same time as separate products for the home and professional markets. Only with WinXP did Microsoft finally "unite" them and throw away DOS.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_nt Sun, 27 Nov 2005 07:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (nimble) Comments