PDA

View Full Version : Windows 1.xx/2.xx back in the era



Xacalite
April 13th, 2017, 04:28 AM
So I noticed that people with vintage PCs like to play with Windows 1.xx/2.xx.
But, as far as I recall, back in their times these versions were pretty much unheard of, it all seemed to begin with 3.0.
So, is Windows 1/2 more popular now than back then?

KC9UDX
April 13th, 2017, 04:49 AM
I never used them, but I was aware of them when I first started using "PC"s round 1990~1991 or so.

I ran into a guy in 1994 who was very proud of his very built-up 5170, and he had every version of Windows up to that point, and did show off the early versions. I still remember being amazed at how bad they were considering other similar environments that were out at the time they were.

But when I first got Windows 3.0, I thought the same thing. Except for the graphics (VGA), GEOS on the '64 seemed better, not to mention GSOS and MacOS or SunOS. (I hadn't seen AmigaOS at that point).

SomeGuy
April 13th, 2017, 08:12 AM
I was talking to someone recently who used Windows 2 back in the day for use with Corel Draw. Windows 3.0 was the first I got my hands on to, but stuck with DOS until a while after 95.

PageMaker seems to have been a big use of Windows 1.x, but mainly for those too cheap to buy a Mac.

smbaker
April 13th, 2017, 08:19 AM
I can't recall whether I used Windows 1.0 / 2.0. I do remember playing with Gem. It's possible that I also played with an old Windows, shrugged, and went back to doing useful work in DOS. Using it implies to me that I was able to accomplish useful work with it, and I'm pretty sure that didn't happen until 3.0.

One of my first memories of Windows was the "Paint" program, though I couldn't say what version of Windows I first experienced it.

krebizfan
April 13th, 2017, 08:22 AM
Not only used it, developed software for it and still have the SDK.

The ability to communicate between applications with DDE was a bit of an advance. MS did suffer compared to some of the competitors in terms of looks. Apple could optimize for the one true Mac display while MS tried to make code that worked on all the strange PC graphics cards.

ClassicHasClass
April 13th, 2017, 08:52 AM
I was aware of it, but I used Macs long before. My parents' first PC was a 386 and it ran Windows 3.1 by then.

Chuck(G)
April 13th, 2017, 09:09 AM
I think your (Xacalite) assessment is accurate. There were a few programs that demanded the use of Windows 1/2, but their number was small. Similarly, there were a few that demanded GEM.

bhtooefr
April 13th, 2017, 09:19 AM
Another thing was that, back in the day, a fair amount of Windows 2.x programs were distributed along with the "Windows Runtime", and you wouldn't know (unless you were looking for the Windows widgets) that you were using Windows.

Xacalite
April 13th, 2017, 09:32 AM
Not only used it, developed software for it and still have the SDK.

The ability to communicate between applications with DDE was a bit of an advance. MS did suffer compared to some of the competitors in terms of looks. Apple could optimize for the one true Mac display while MS tried to make code that worked on all the strange PC graphics cards.
So, what was the biggest problem with Win 1/2 software development?
I heard opinions that it was the memory constraints: DOS+Windows was leaving less RAM for apps than pure DOS, Win 3 finally solved this problem by running apps in protected mode.

krebizfan
April 13th, 2017, 09:38 AM
1989 was probably when Windows 2 users switched from having a runtime for Excel or PageMaker to installing full Windows. That was when Ami, Corel Draw, and Word for Windows were introduced and PC Paintbrush for Windows was frequently bundled. Download the betas of File Manager and Program Manager from MS's BBS and prepare for the future.

resman
April 13th, 2017, 09:53 AM
Windows/386 (based on Windows 2 with V8086 support) was a very nice environment. I was able to run Ami, Excel, and DOS programs concurrently. Although Windows apps were cooperatively multitasked, the DOS boxes were all pre-emptive and very handy for DOS development - one DOS box ran Brief, the other MSC 5.1 builds.

krebizfan
April 13th, 2017, 10:03 AM
So, what was the biggest problem with Win 1/2 software development?
I heard opinions that it was the memory constraints: DOS+Windows was leaving less RAM for apps than pure DOS, Win 3 finally solved this problem by running apps in protected mode.

Windows 3 had the major advantage of hardware advancing underneath; a 386 with SVGA was going to make any GUI program look good. The second advantage was the deployment of Visual Basic plus ODBC simplifying business applications.

Most applications should have run fine in the Windows real mode address space. Protected mode did make it easier to run multiple applications compared to tricking out EMS. The code I wrote in 1991 and 1992 would have needed minimal changes to back port to Windows 2. I doubt the financial firm paying me for reporting tools cared that I included color icons which was one of the few Windows 3 features I used.

Note that the good Windows 2 applications (Corel Draw, Excel) that got upgraded for Windows 3 stomped all over newly introduced competitors in the same space.

WordPerfect was a special case. They didn't want to hire an outside developer that knew GUIs. That lead to rather poorly reviewed initial releases for the Mac and Windows.

1ST1
April 13th, 2017, 12:21 PM
How can Win 1/2 be more popular today than in old times? There are not many peoples today playing with XTs. I think today it's for historic interest of us only. I habe it running on my Olivetti M24 and Atari PC3. They also have GEM installed.