• Re: Microsoft Windows is 40 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 23 00:00:51 2023
    On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 21:41:36 +0100, Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl>
    wrote:

    On 11/11/2023 03:08, Joel Crump wrote:
    On 11/10/2023 7:01 PM, ? Good Guy ? wrote:

    Microsoft Windows just hit a major milestone — its 40th birthday.


    I don't count anything before 3.x.  But that's a hell of a long time, I
    was 13, 18 when 95 hit.  But I stood in line at Egghead Software to buy
    Windows 95 on CD-ROM media, introducing the now-familiar product key.


    Well, I can count something before Windows.
    MS. Dos, and before that CP/M.

    But, indeed, Windows started with 3. It was wonderfull in these days!

    Fokke Nauta

    There was actually a WIndows 1 (which came on a single 5.25" floppy).
    Somebody gave me a pirated version which I never installed as I'd read
    reviews calling it crap (on a scale of 1 to 10 the reviewer would have
    used a negative number) and I presume I eventually pitched it with the
    last of my 5.25" floppies 2 or 3 years after my 5.25" drive yielded up
    the ghost.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to Joel on Sat Dec 23 00:11:17 2023
    On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 21:29:55 -0500, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

    I had CP/M for an Apple II system. We had all kinds of floppy disks
    of stuff.

    CP/M for Apple was actually one of the few Microsoft hardware products
    other than mice.


    But, indeed, Windows started with 3. It was wonderfull in these days!


    Win2.x was cool, but never really had enough of a foothold in the
    market, 3.x was an unbelievable and venerable success, and 95 through
    Me thrived as successors, with XP finally merging home and business
    use (along with a major Win2000 service pack that made it equally
    functional as a 9x upgrade).

    My theory is that every second MS product is crap with the odd product
    being OK

    e.g.
    MSDOS 2.0 - crap
    MSDOS 3.0 - ok
    MSDOS 4.0 - memory hog probably worst of the MSDOS series
    MSDOS 5.0 - huge improvement
    MSDOS 5.1 - another memory hog
    MSDOS 5.2 / 5.22 / 6.0 - decent version 5.22 cleaned up a lot of bugs,
    6.0 did even better then 6.1 was a stinker, 6.2 decent again

    Windows 3.0 - huge improvement over original version, Win 3.1
    introduced more bugs, 3.11 introduced networking (intranet and first
    connection to internet)

    they jumped to Win 95 since some pirate had trademarked Windows 7 8 9
    and Windows 10
    Win 95 often considered 'new generation Windows'
    Win 98 - Win 95 done right

    und zo on und zo on...

    Mostly my 30 year old son was impressed I could recite all the MSDOS
    and Windows versions going back to his infancy...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From VanguardLH@21:1/5 to The Horny Goat on Sat Dec 23 02:34:30 2023
    The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

    Fokke Nauta <usenet@solfon.nl> wrote:

    Joel Crump wrote:

    Good Guy wrote:

    Microsoft Windows just hit a major milestone — its 40th birthday.

    I don't count anything before 3.x.  But that's a hell of a long
    time, I was 13, 18 when 95 hit.  But I stood in line at Egghead
    Software to buy Windows 95 on CD-ROM media, introducing the
    now-familiar product key.

    Well, I can count something before Windows.
    MS. Dos, and before that CP/M.

    But, indeed, Windows started with 3. It was wonderfull in these days!

    There was actually a WIndows 1 (which came on a single 5.25" floppy). Somebody gave me a pirated version which I never installed as I'd read reviews calling it crap (on a scale of 1 to 10 the reviewer would have
    used a negative number) and I presume I eventually pitched it with the
    last of my 5.25" floppies 2 or 3 years after my 5.25" drive yielded up
    the ghost.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history

    Version 1 was released Nov 20, 1985, so "Windows" is just over 38 years
    old. 3.1x doesn't count any more than 1.0 since Windows back then was a
    GUI shell atop DOS. Don't know where 40 years came from other than a
    coarse estimate. Good Guy isn't all that accurate in his posts. I
    filter him out. Good Guy isn't really a good guy: nymshifter, started
    spamming his mytaxsite.co.uk in the signature of his posts a month after registering it, berates posters that ask simple/basic questions, posts
    way off-topic, uses HTML in text-only newsgroups (and then lies to
    reader claiming their NNTP clients are broken if an HTML-rendered
    version of his posts are not immediately visible).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Frank Slootweg@21:1/5 to VanguardLH on Sat Dec 23 13:33:26 2023
    VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
    The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
    [...]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history

    Version 1 was released Nov 20, 1985, so "Windows" is just over 38 years
    old. 3.1x doesn't count any more than 1.0 since Windows back then was a
    GUI shell atop DOS. Don't know where 40 years came from other than a
    coarse estimate. Good Guy isn't all that accurate in his posts. I

    I already mentioned on November 11 [1] that GG's claim


    Microsoft Windows just hit a major milestone — its 40th birthday.
    </GG>

    is 'correct' in the sense that it was the *birthday* of Windows, not the
    first *release*, which was not until *two years later*.

    [Repeat of relevant URL and quote:]

    <https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/shows/history/history-of-microsoft-1983>

    "November 10, 1983

    Microsoft unveils Windows, an extension of the MS-DOS operating system
    that provides a graphical operating environment. Windows features a
    window management capability that allows a user to view unrelated
    application programs simultaneously. It also provides the capability to
    transfer data from one application program to another. Windows wouldn't
    actually ship until 2 years later."

    [1] Message-ID: <uio4kr.798.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>

    [...]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From VanguardLH@21:1/5 to Frank Slootweg on Sun Dec 24 01:18:31 2023
    Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

    VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
    The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
    [...]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history

    Version 1 was released Nov 20, 1985, so "Windows" is just over 38 years
    old. 3.1x doesn't count any more than 1.0 since Windows back then was a
    GUI shell atop DOS. Don't know where 40 years came from other than a
    coarse estimate. Good Guy isn't all that accurate in his posts. I

    I already mentioned on November 11 [1] that GG's claim


    Microsoft Windows just hit a major milestone — its 40th birthday.
    </GG>

    is 'correct' in the sense that it was the *birthday* of Windows, not the first *release*, which was not until *two years later*.

    [Repeat of relevant URL and quote:]

    <https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/shows/history/history-of-microsoft-1983>

    "November 10, 1983

    Microsoft unveils Windows, an extension of the MS-DOS operating system
    that provides a graphical operating environment. Windows features a
    window management capability that allows a user to view unrelated
    application programs simultaneously. It also provides the capability to
    transfer data from one application program to another. Windows wouldn't
    actually ship until 2 years later."

    [1] Message-ID: <uio4kr.798.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>

    [...]

    I've been in software development houses, and I've seen lots of software
    that gets developed but never sees the light of day (never released).
    It's exasperating to work on a project for months only to get it yanked.
    I don't measure when someone mentions something is under consideration
    or in development as no one outside the author gets to actually use it.

    When determining when to replace tires, you look at the manufacture
    date, not when you bought the tire to put on your car. So, in the same
    vein as you and the article, age is being measured from initial concept
    rather than actual availability.

    For software, announcements are unreliable. Might see fruition, might
    fade into the bit bucket. I'm sure there is software that had a very
    long concept period, and an announcement, but who cares until it
    actually shows up.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)