Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Jul 2012 18:39 UTC
Windows "Windows 8 is on track to Release to Manufacturing the first week of August. For enterprise customers with Software Assurance benefits, they will have full access to Windows 8 bits as early as August. Additionally, she noted that RTM is when we’ll be turning on the commerce platform so that developers can start earning money for their apps. [...] Tami went on to say that Windows 8 will reach general availability by the end of October! This means that new Windows 8 and Windows RT PCs will be available to buy and upgrades will be available starting in October. She also mentioned that that Windows 8 will be available in 109 languages across 231 markets worldwide."
Thread beginning with comment 526060
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Imagine
by malxau on Mon 9th Jul 2012 19:48 UTC in reply to "Imagine"
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04

Well, after version 3.0 of course.


What was so bad about 3.0?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Imagine
by moondevil on Mon 9th Jul 2012 20:28 in reply to "RE: Imagine"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Don't know, I was happy with it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Imagine
by Bit_Rapist on Tue 10th Jul 2012 04:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Imagine"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Nah it was Windows 3.11 for Workgroups that you were happy with ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Imagine
by quackalist on Mon 9th Jul 2012 21:15 in reply to "RE: Imagine"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Not sure I wouldn't prefer Win 3 to 8. Maybe not, but 2000 is certainly a goer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Imagine
by MOS6510 on Tue 10th Jul 2012 05:41 in reply to "RE: Imagine"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Windows 3.0 was just like Windows 3.1 only with features missing and a lot more bugs.

The good thing was that it did run on a 286 with 1 MB of RAM, IIIRC 3.1 needed a 386 and 2 MB.

The big problem I had with 3.0 and 3.1 that when one application crashed the rest was bound to also blow up.

People may not like 9x, ME and Vista (pre SP1), but they were much better than 3.0 and 3.1 (leaving 3.11 out on purpose).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Imagine
by Yeti on Tue 10th Jul 2012 06:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Imagine"
Yeti Member since:
2005-07-11

Nope. I have a laptop with a 286 & 1 MB of RAM and Win 3.1 runs on that beast just fine.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Imagine
by malxau on Tue 10th Jul 2012 07:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Imagine"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

Windows 3.0 was just like Windows 3.1 only with features missing and a lot more bugs.


True, for the most part.

The good thing was that it did run on a 286 with 1 MB of RAM, IIIRC 3.1 needed a 386 and 2 MB.


3.0 was the only version to support all three operating modes: real, standard, and 386 enhanced. Real could run on an 8088 with 640Kb of memory. It also provided great compatibility with real mode Windows 2.x applications, which was effectively removed from 3.1.

I know it's impossible to really go back, but I have a soft spot for 3.0 - it's the first one I developed for, and I still have the SDK manuals on my shelf.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Imagine
by zima on Thu 12th Jul 2012 06:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Imagine"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

features missing and a lot more bugs [...] when one application crashed the rest was bound to also blow up.

Pretty much all families of consumer OS shared those issues back then. Win 3.x was decent for the times.

Reply Parent Score: 2