Windows 1.0 in 3D (not 7)

Enterfrize · **Windows 1.0 in 3D (not 7) -** 10-26-2009, 09:24 | posts: 83 | User is Offline

Did you know that there really was a Windows 1.0?

Check it out in 3D!

http://digg.com/gaming_news/Windows_...c_3D_Seriously

Regards,
Enterfrize

Glidefan

They did had to start from somewhere

MS even did OS/2 for IBM

sykozis · 10-27-2009, 14:50 | posts: 3,338 | Location: USA | User is Offline

I don't see Windows 1.0 in 3D at all....looks like the standard "2D" interface...

Glidefan

I think they meant to see a stereo picture showing a desk and a monitor with Win 1.0

nexu · 10-30-2009, 23:17 | posts: 233 | Location: Amsterdamned | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enterfrize

Did you know that there really was a Windows 1.0?

Yes i did know there was Windows 1.0. But unlike Windows that's being sold as an Operating System now. Windows back than was just a mere (graphical) shell rather than an OS. And many considered all Windows version up to Windows 98/ME still as a graphical shell rather than a true OS consider it relies heavily on DOS, tho that point is debatable.
I myself have used Windows 3.0 for about a year on an old 8-bits 8088 system. And around that time. There were actually other better graphical shells available than Windows that offered more functionality.

sykozis · 10-31-2009, 20:39 | posts: 3,338 | Location: USA | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by nexu

Yes i did know there was Windows 1.0. But unlike Windows that's being sold as an Operating System now. Windows back than was just a mere (graphical) shell rather than an OS. And many considered all Windows version up to Windows 98/ME still as a graphical shell rather than a true OS consider it relies heavily on DOS, tho that point is debatable.
I myself have used Windows 3.0 for about a year on an old 8-bits 8088 system. And around that time. There were actually other better graphical shells available than Windows that offered more functionality.

Windows relied on Dos until XP was released. Windows98, was essentially just an update to Windows95, with ME being nothing but an update to Windows98. WindowsXP, was the first "home user targetted" release that didn't rely on Dos.

bokah · 11-08-2009, 00:15 | posts: 1,028 | User is Offline

i remember diggin command dir more than using gui

Power_Down · 11-16-2009, 02:58 | posts: 34 | User is Offline

i dont remember that, and i was around since the dos 6 days

yleclerc · 11-18-2009, 10:13 | posts: 483 | Location: CANADA | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glidefan

They did had to start from somewhere

MS even did OS/2 for IBM

And MS was writing Windows 3.0 at the same time. IBM seemed to have forgot to get a 'No competition" clause in the MS OS/2 contract. They never though anyone would not want a non IBM operating system.

F1refly · 11-19-2009, 16:51 | posts: 5,369 | Location: muncie,indiana | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by nexu

Yes i did know there was Windows 1.0. But unlike Windows that's being sold as an Operating System now. Windows back than was just a mere (graphical) shell rather than an OS. And many considered all Windows version up to Windows 98/ME still as a graphical shell rather than a true OS consider it relies heavily on DOS, tho that point is debatable.
I myself have used Windows 3.0 for about a year on an old 8-bits 8088 system. And around that time. There were actually other better graphical shells available than Windows that offered more functionality.

i think they were more into business use as apposed to makeing it intended for home users. home user market afaik back in early 80's was probably more Apple than IBM so maybe not much of a need for a better graphic shell

nexu · 11-19-2009, 17:53 | posts: 233 | Location: Amsterdamned | User is Offline

Don't forget about Amiga!