Windows 1.0 released this day in '85

[billf]

Oh how far operating systems have come:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

[ahofle]

Indeed!
http://databsod.ytmnd.com/

 

[billf]

Indeed!
http://databsod.ytmnd.com/

 

 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Oh how far operating systems have come:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

Heeeeey, that looks awfully familiar to something Xerox was working on at the time.   

[JimmyU]

You know, I never knew anybody at the time who used Windows 1.0.  They kept using DOS.

[BobbyG66]

Where would we be today if the file name format was still 8.3?

[Level42]

That wasn't an Operating System. It was a Shell. A graphical one, but still a Shell.

Some people think it is even today. And I can't blaim them.

[patrickl]

That wasn't an Operating System. It was a Shell. A graphical one, but still a Shell.

Some people think it is even today. And I can't blaim them.

Doesn't that hold for any modern "OS". Isn't there always a combination of a "true OS part" and a graphical UI (Operating Environment)?

[AtomSmasher]

That wasn't an Operating System. It was a Shell. A graphical one, but still a Shell.

Some people think it is even today. And I can't blaim them.

Doesn't that hold for any modern "OS". Isn't there always a combination of a "true OS part" and a graphical UI (Operating Environment)?

No.  One of the most obvious differences is that when you started your computer back then, it started into DOS.  You then had to tell Windows to open and run on top of DOS.  It's kind of like how you don't consider Gnome or KDE as operating systems, they are both shells for linux.

[patrickl]

That wasn't an Operating System. It was a Shell. A graphical one, but still a Shell.

Some people think it is even today. And I can't blaim them.

Doesn't that hold for any modern "OS". Isn't there always a combination of a "true OS part" and a graphical UI (Operating Environment)?

No.  One of the most obvious differences is that when you started your computer back then, it started into DOS.  You then had to tell Windows to open and run on top of DOS.  It's kind of like how you don't consider Gnome or KDE as operating systems, they are both shells for linux.

How does that contradict what I said?

[AtomSmasher]

That wasn't an Operating System. It was a Shell. A graphical one, but still a Shell.

Some people think it is even today. And I can't blaim them.

Doesn't that hold for any modern "OS". Isn't there always a combination of a "true OS part" and a graphical UI (Operating Environment)?

No.  One of the most obvious differences is that when you started your computer back then, it started into DOS.  You then had to tell Windows to open and run on top of DOS.  It's kind of like how you don't consider Gnome or KDE as operating systems, they are both shells for linux.

How does that contradict what I said?

Yes, in windows there is the kernel that runs the program (the "true OS part") and the GUI that interacts between you and the kernel.  The difference is that in modern windows the kernel is built into windows, while in early versions of windows the kernel was DOS.

[patrickl]

So it's still a kernel + a gui. Just like it is with Linux and any other 'nix version (including the Mac version)

[AtomSmasher]

So it's still a kernel + a gui. Just like it is with Linux and any other 'nix version (including the Mac version)

Correct, which is why recent versions of Windows are considered an OS and the early versions are considered a shell (they were only a gui).

[patrickl]

I was responding to

Some people think it is even today. And I can't blaim them.

[AtomSmasher]

I was responding to

Some people think it is even today. And I can't blaim them.

All I was did was support what he said.  Since recent versions of windows are OS's, most people tend to think the original versions were also OS's.

[patrickl]

He's claiming that even today "some people" consider Windows merely a shell.

[Level42]

And I didn't say that I did 

Does it really matter ?

[patrickl]

No it doesn't matter at all. I'm just wondering how AtomSmasher thinks he disagrees with me. As far as I'm concerned I don't disagree with what he says.

[AtomSmasher]

No it doesn't matter at all. I'm just wondering how AtomSmasher thinks he disagrees with me. As far as I'm concerned I don't disagree with what he says.

Hmm, I thought he was saying some people believe Windows 1.0 to be an OS and that you were saying its no different from modern windows so it is an OS.  I guess I misread whats going on here.

Just ignore the crazy guy in the corner 

[patrickl]

Ah ok. It's cool how long we can keep agreeing and disagreeing at the same time

[Felsir]

I still have the six 5'25" floppydisks with Windows 1.02 and the original box. It's part of my computer relic collection (next to a Commodore PET, a 10BM MFM-harddisk and things like that...). uhm...did that sound geeky?