“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.”
Imagine being the first one to buy Windows 8 and it turns out to be the worst version if Windows ever. Well, after version 3.0 of course.
What was so bad about 3.0?
Don’t know, I was happy with it.
Nah it was Windows 3.11 for Workgroups that you were happy with
I am old enough to have tried all Windows versions…
Not sure I wouldn’t prefer Win 3 to 8. Maybe not, but 2000 is certainly a goer.
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).
Nope. I have a laptop with a 286 & 1 MB of RAM and Win 3.1 runs on that beast just fine.
Well, that’s a pleasant supprise!
I’ll see if I can get 3.1 running on a 286.
True, for the most part.
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.
I have an IBM PS/2 286 with Windows 3.0.
It’s a nice machine, but sadly the “paint” on the metal case starts to fall off.
I almost bought one!
The first PC I bought, the choice was between a PS/2 286 with OS/2 v1.0 or a 386 SX PC clone with the double of hard disk size running DR-DOS.
Since the 386 was way cheaper than the IBM one, while giving me the opportunity to play with all the 386 cool features, that was the one I took home.
I remember reading an article where they dished the 386. The 286 was better price/performace and it would be improved well far in to the 90’s.
For DOS stuff a 286 is, for most things, quite enough.
Nah, DOS stuff worth revisiting is mostly about games (why would you torture yourself with some DOS applications from the day?). Only, those from 286 era are usually not worth anything (PC was bad platform for games at that point; why did people even bother…) – while the later gems really could do with 386 or 486 (or even Pentium, some of them)
Of course, it’s usually better to just run them all under DOSbox anyway…
If you have an old PC old software is all you can use.
It’s fun to do, because you probably still know a lot, but also forgot even more and rediscovering them gives a nice retro feeling.
“Use” is not the right word for that… “fun” is also not a given – me, I’m glad that VICE or DOSbox can by used by essentially drag’n’drop and such; back then, I really didn’t like much, in itself, figuring out stuff without even the base documentation.
I was/am used to figuring stuff out without documentation.
Learning DOS didn’t take me long. I used my Amiga knowledge to type “dir” and “cd”, quickly locating all the DOS commands and just seeing what they did.
I’m planing to reorganize my work room, I may try to create an extra workplace to put any of my ancient computers to fiddle around with and when I’m done swap if for another. One is sure to be a very cool MS-DOS machine.
Pretty much all families of consumer OS shared those issues back then. Win 3.x was decent for the times.
Despite all its limitations MS-DOS was pretty stable. It’s got a place in my favorite OS list.
You count this one among OS? ;P
I certainly do! BUT on the right computer. The faster/modern a PC is the more DOS sucks, but on an IBM XT with a black/green screen for example it’s pretty cool.
NT 4.0 is cool too, on a dual Pentium Pro, but not on a Xeon powered server for example.
But DOS and NT 4 look very unnatural on those machines, even though they’d fly. Well, not sure NT would install on a Xeon or if it does support most if any of they hardware.
Next you’ll tell me you also appreciate CP/M?
DOS more or less sucked everywhere, really – you just got used to it, thinking there was no hope for anything better (if only we’d realise back then something like Contiki, SymbOS, or GEOS – both 8 and 16-bit version separately notable)
Not entirely… yeah, it kinda fits a machine of such generation (dual Pentium II 266 in my case), with how light it is – but no USB is a bummer (we really got used to the convenience of USB flash drives, and many newer mouses don’t seem to include the logic necessary to work with USB->PS/2 converter). So, for me, 2k fits it better.
I appreciate CP/M.
Well, never really used it. My Epson PX/8 runs it and my Commodore 128 if I could find the disk. It does have a cool name.
DOS isn’t so bad. Well, okay it is, but it was very easy to learn and use.
Lack of USB support does suck a bit in NT 4, but that’s part of the charm. Windows 2000 was much better and quite good, but it’s too modern to be retro or cool and too old/not so good compared to 2003/2008.
Like DOS NT4 was also pretty easy to master (to a usuable degree).
Making a DOS PC connect to a NT4 server is a pretty cool thing to do.
I recently found out Windows Update no longer works with MSIE on NT4.
I appreciate more the OS-9, from those times (though also never really used it; but, while not on the level of Contiki or SymbOS, it’s still “oh, what could have been”).
CP/M is basically pre-DOS – only, even worse. Both “easy to learn and use” only in the sense they weren’t capable of much – but GUIs of the 80s were already the way to go (I would think you’d be the first to point this out, with classic MacOS
…plus, DOS often required arcane magic to make it work (memory extenders, AUTOEXEC.BAT acrobatics, and such)
BTW, my contact with it was on a more curious machine:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_5120
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Robotron_A_5120
(but yeah, hardly anybody used it on C=128, probably the most popular ~PC capable of running CP/M; I think that my cousin didn’t even ever have the disk, with his 2nd hand C=128D)
And something tells me you will see 2k as similarly charming to NT 4.0, not a long time from now.
Making a 68k Macintosh connect to a NT4 is a pretty cool thing to do… (I remember quite extensive article, in my local CHIP magazine from 1998 or so, about various ideas for NT4 – among them, exploiting good Appletalk support in NT4, retiring that awkward isolated Apples setup, integrating Macs into larger company network; not sure why they described it, since hardly anybody used Macs, much less networks of them …except, maybe, in newspaper editorial offices, so perhaps just their personal experience)
Generally, Windows NT 3.x is what you should be looking at, if you’re really serious about “retro”
Im looking forward to the launch and using the ‘complete’ versions of the metro apps. I hope the state they are in is unfinished and not just shoddy
I would be surprised if they didnt launch with a few ‘big name’ apps though like Office or Sage. No biz will dare shift over unless they can almost guarantee they wont be inconvenienced to much (there is always a bit of pain in upgrading an os with those wonderful legacy apps)
That is something I’ve said for a while since using the preview apps. If Microsoft wants people to use Metro, they’re going to have to make the apps better then what we already have.
The mail app is really bad, its not even worth setting up in its current state. Just pin your webmail access to the start screen instead, you’ll have a 100% better experiance.
There doesn’t seem to be any announcement of killer Metro apps yet, and while I understand that they will come eventually as thats what Microsoft is pushing for, sooner the better in this case.
I’d love to see adobe setup with a native photoshop, but I think we’ll see more of gimp or paint.net taking a Metro look.
One program I think would do really well as a Metro app is steam, but I think the way Metro apps work, it’d make it next to impossible for that to happen
Windows 8 turned out to be a very fundamental change in the way users use their PCs, in my opinion too unecessary and stupid.
I’ll continue using Arch Linux and won’t care about Windows 8 for the forseeable future.
Oh, its interface is plain ugly and uninspirative.
EDIT: for me, it seems Internet Explorer is all inside Metro. EU, don’t miss the opportunity to have some fun punishing Microsoft
Edited 2012-07-09 20:34 UTC
“I’ll continue using Arch Linux and won’t care about Windows 8 for the forseeable future.”
Why did you even care in the first place, enough to comment about how awful it is if you are running Arch, are happy with it, and plan on continuing to use it.
They try a little bit too hard don’t they.
So, “how boring” because of too great changes, WTH are you people on?
Having tried the release candidate, I am not enthusiastic about Windows 8. It is probably alright on a tablet PC, but it is a bit of a pain to use on a PC. I do not understand why we cannot select explorer or metro mode on first login with the option of changing it later in the control panel.
all windows versions are bad.. This one will be no different.
bad for your wallet
bad for your freedom
bad for your brain
Because $40 is really expensive for something that gets updated for 10 years.
You need a bigger brush.
Sure, everyone should just get everything for free.
It’s not windows which did it to you. Do not keep forgetting the pills.