Jump to content



Photo

Amazing 1993 Video of Windows NT 3.1

win2k

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Atomic Wanderer Chicken

Atomic Wanderer Chicken

    Assistant Special Agent Chicken in charge

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 20-August 12
  • Location: Black Mesa Research Facility, USA
  • OS: Windows 95 with Microsoft Plus
  • Phone: Motorola MicroTAC Elite

Posted 25 April 2013 - 01:05



Alot of the features in the first Windows NT 3.1 are still in the Windows we use today, it is really amazing. Windows NT was ahead of its of time back then and so much that many computers could not run it (like Vista)!


#2 +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 25 April 2013 - 01:10

I LOVED that show!!! It was always the highlight of my week!

9:30 : Is he designing a dildo?

#3 Elliot B.

Elliot B.

    Over 13 years on Neowin

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 16-August 01
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S5

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:18

Fantastic video - thanks for sharing :)

#4 +Quillz

Quillz

    A Talking Pokemon

  • Joined: 19-July 05
  • Location: LA, CA
  • OS: Win8
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:04

Only thing that bothered me about Computer Chronicles was how fast the subject changed. Five minutes of Windows NT, segue to a short bit on Mac OS and OS/2, go back to NT applications, etc. The better episodes where the ones that only focused on a single OS or product.

Cool video, though. Seen it before but it's a nice trip down memory lane.

#5 trek

trek

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 11-August 02
  • Location: Vancouver, Canada

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:06

The 90's episodes had a weird set... they segway to a new guest leaving the other guy standing there in the background... I liked the 80's one better.

#6 Nashy

Nashy

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 05-September 04
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S5 - SM-G900i

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:13

I had no idea that NTFS was so old.

#7 +Quillz

Quillz

    A Talking Pokemon

  • Joined: 19-July 05
  • Location: LA, CA
  • OS: Win8
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:14

I had no idea that NTFS was so old.

Might even be older than 1993. OS/2 was originally designed to be the powerful, multi-tasking OS that NT would eventually become. It wasn't until the success of Windows 3 in 1990 that Microsoft decided to cease OS/2 development, at which point IBM took over it solely.

#8 Joshie

Joshie

    Wandering NPC

  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:21

Might even be older than 1993. OS/2 was originally designed to be the powerful, multi-tasking OS that NT would eventually become. It wasn't until the success of Windows 3 in 1990 that Microsoft decided to cease OS/2 development, at which point IBM took over it solely.

Amusingly, IBM back then was considered a slow, lumbering, committee-driven conglomerate of suits, yet there's no escaping people who deluded themselves into thinking we would've been better off with OS/2 than Windows.

#9 virtorio

virtorio

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 15
  • Joined: 28-April 03
  • Location: New Zealand
  • OS: OSX 10.10, Windows 8.1
  • Phone: LG G3

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:24

That's a f**king sweet into theme.

#10 AlexMagik

AlexMagik

    Over the Top

  • Joined: 09-October 03
  • Location: China
  • OS: MacOS X

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:25

i loved OS/2, was really fast on slow machines... i was able to run it on a 486, win95 was lot slower and less powerful than os/2 at that time... sadly it never picked up, no apps around...

#11 +Quillz

Quillz

    A Talking Pokemon

  • Joined: 19-July 05
  • Location: LA, CA
  • OS: Win8
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:29

Amusingly, IBM back then was considered a slow, lumbering, committee-driven conglomerate of suits, yet there's no escaping people who deluded themselves into thinking we would've been better off with OS/2 than Windows.

From what I've read, IBM and Microsoft were opposites, especially in code design. IBM wrote long, bloated code and paid by lines of code. Microsoft went for small, faster code. The documentary "Triumph of the Nerds" had an interview with Steve Ballmer about how IBM didn't seem to follow the mentality of paying a developer more if they were able to write a program in fewer lines, making it smaller and faster.

That, among other technical differences, was a big reason why OS/2 eventually become IBM only. I've never actually played with the Warp releases, but they sure look interesting, from what I've seen demoed.

#12 Rigby

Rigby

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:44

Windows NT could run OS/2 1.0 applications all the way up to NT 4.0 I believe, as well as supporting the OS/2 HPFS file system.

#13 +Frank B.

Frank B.

    Member N° 1,302

  • Tech Issues Solved: 12
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Frankfurt, DE
  • OS: OS X 10.10
  • Phone: iPhone 6

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:50

Windows NT could run OS/2 1.0 applications all the way up to NT 4.0 I believe, as well as supporting the OS/2 HPFS file system.

The OS/2 1.x sub-system was part of NT until version 5.0, better known as Windows 2000. Additionally there was an add-on for NT up to 4.0 IIRC which allowed you to use OS/2 1.x Presentation Manager applications, as shown below.

Posted Image

#14 +RedReddington

RedReddington

    member_id=28229

  • Joined: 14-May 03

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:10

Class Video :-D

#15 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:38

Amusingly, IBM back then was considered a slow, lumbering, committee-driven conglomerate of suits, yet there's no escaping people who deluded themselves into thinking we would've been better off with OS/2 than Windows.


IBM's problem wasn't OS/2, but letting OS/2 flounder while Windows 95 was in development (after the OS/2-NT split).

OS/2 in general, and OS/2 2.x in particular, had an opportunity, even after Microsoft started replacing Windows 3.1 with Windows for Workgroups in shipments to OEMs (starting with Gateway, then followed quickly by Dell and HP) - IBM's OS/2 business had even admitted as such, and released OS/2 for Windows, which let customers add an existing Windows 3.x - even Windows for Workgroups - to OS/2. However, IBM's Systems Group - primarily their mainframe and nascent services business - wanted no part of ordinary consumers, or even SMBs, and starved the OS/2 unit of marketing funds. OS/2 required no more, in terms of hardware than Windows 95 - which itself required little more than Windows for Workgroups. (I would know - I dual-booted the two while Windows 95 was in beta.) True - Windows 95 had an ace in the hole that would not become evident until after it launched; it could run not merely Win32s applications, but even full-fledged Win32 (as in normally targeting NT) applications. That was something OS/2 could NOT counter without hefty royalty payments to Microsoft - and heaping helpings of crow. IBM under Trammel, and then Gerstner, was very prideful - could you see them going back to Microsoft, hat in hand and with a fat royalty check?