25 years ago Bill Gates showed off Windows 1.0

Twenty-Five years ago Bill Gates gave the world Windows 1.0. No one knew at the time what would become of Windows but looking back it's quite incredible what it has become.

Bill boasted about a graphical user interface, or as he called it then, the 16-bit graphical operating environment, was a step up for the computer industry. The feature list was long and distinguished for its time but seems trivial by today's standard.

Regardless of what you think about Windows you can't deny the fact that it changed the landscape of our culture in every fashion. Who knows what OS we would be all running today if Windows 1.0 never saw the birth of light ( Fun fact, Bill Gates wanted to call Windows 1.0 "Interface Manager").

Windows has defined today's modern computing. From Windows 1.0 to Windows 7 we all owe Microsoft a little due diligence. Hats off to you windows and enjoy your birthday :)

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Internet addiction is a disorder?

Next Story

iPhone ranked #1 In U.S.

27 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I started programming with Visual Baisc, didn't do much on VC++, which I kind of regret, now I am learning C#. I really got a new prespective about Windows after reading books on Windows Programming. Most of the Windows versions are good, except Windows ME. The reason that I prefer using Windows OS is that I didn't spend much time getting used to it, unlike DOS (DOS was great, there are quite a few favorite games that I still play). Also I didn't have any difficulty teaching using various applications, or compose mail to my dad. All I did is tell him that's all and he learnt on his own.
In the end ultimately it depends on end user what OS they use, there is no one OS that fits all, each OS has it own positives points and negative points. If Windows was that bad it people woudn't have used it for this long and honestly Windows has come a long way from 1.0 to Vista, and Both Mr.Bill and Microsoft have done a great job.
I am gaming freak, and I have enjoyed playing games on DOS, Windows, XBox and PSP. Playing games on Xbox was nice experience than playing on PC

Windows was what helped me move into IT as a career. And now I don't know whether I've done the right thing with my career! Is that Microsoft's fault? Nah, I loved the earlier versions of Windows, things were so new and innovative. Nowadays, I'm getting kinda bored with all the fanfares made about an OS release when on the face of things, it's just got a new interface and slightly beefed up security. There is nothing really new, different, to capture the imagination anymore.

I agree with gnuman, the biggest development for Microsoft was DirectX. The xbox 360 was pretty awesome too, especially Live, as it was the first gaming console to offer that level of online ability. I wouldn't be wrong in saying that any console manufacturers would look to Live before attempting to create an online environment for their games.

and dont forget they are the first to introduce Harddrive in consoles , way better then those PS memory which it was limited in space and go bust easily

I'm insanely tired right now, so I may be making a fool of myself now, but the math doesn't seem right here...?

1. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985, not 1983, making it 23 years this year.
2. Your linked article was posted on Nov 20th 2005 and refer to it as the exact date, so we aren't even on the right day here.

wat

rpgfan said,
Well, I guess that explains why I'm not so fond of Ballmer... I can't stand salespeople, especially those kind...

lol hilarious did that dude ever had hair? :P

Lisa OS, also from 1983, was so far ahead of Windows 1.0 there's no comparison. Too bad the Lisa cost more than a car at the time; what were they thinking? Still the competition should have won; Windows sucked until version 3.0 came out. Microsoft's dirty tactics with OEMs is the only reason it won.

it called business

apple refused to license system os (or what they call now MAC OS) while MS accepted , the end result .....

Who would have made it to the top? Mac OS, GEM (Geos), DeskViewX, OS/2 ??

Mac OS was a new spin on Xerox PARC research. GEM (by Digital) was a copy of Mac OS, also used in the Atari ST (TOS), and copied for Geos (famous on the C64/C128 ).

Without Windows, who knows if the PC would be dominant? It would could have been an Amiga world, or Mac, .... We don't know. What we do know is that Windows (even if it was a copy) brought a standard in the computing world, even more so when Windows 3.0/3.1 came along. MS a monopoly, YES, but it was not always for the worst.

what do you mean.. if Windows wasn't the standard, another would logically have taken its place... is windows being a standard its sole redeeming factor in your argument of a monopoly not always "for the worst"? additionally, yes, a monopoly makes it easier for oem's and developers, at the cost of improvements (as usual, with all monopolies)... it can be argued what's better in that case...

Regardless of Windows' current state, which I look unfavorably upon, we do indeed owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Gates. Without Windows, we'd probably be using Apple machines more, and the innovation that was a result of the competition between the two would never have existed. Linux might still be around, but it wouldn't be as widespread most likely. Either that or its existence would be rampant because Apple couldn't innovate the way it has and the way it continues to do so without Windows (people like me who dislike aspects of certain versions of Windows would all be crying for something other than Mac, not for something other than Windows. ;-))

Hats off to you, Bill. I thank you for bringing such fierce competition to the world of operating systems. Without you, our world would have been far too different.

_kane81 said,
"Without you, our world would have been far too different"

oh come one, second guessing a future that never existed....

You mean like almost everybody else in their comments?

It should be Windows not windows. Windows didn't really make a huge dent in computing it just killed the competition. OS/2 Warp was a huge competitor and way more advanced than Windows 3.1 was.

The biggest developments from Microsoft are few, but DirectX is a huge contribution for gaming and graphics.

gnuman said,
It should be Windows not windows. Windows didn't really make a huge dent in computing it just killed the competition. OS/2 Warp was a huge competitor and way more advanced than Windows 3.1 was.

The biggest developments from Microsoft are few, but DirectX is a huge contribution for gaming and graphics.

OS/2 was techincally Windows, it was written by Microsoft in colaboration with IBM... you could even run windows 3.11 apps on it because it was so similar!

I can run Windows 3.11 apps on Linux too; that doesn't mean Linux is technically Windows. They were allowed to include the needed APIs but it worked somewhat like Wine, they weren't running natively. Actually it was running a complete instance of Windows 3.1 on top of OS/2. That's why it would ask for your Windows 3.1 disks if you didn't have the edition that included it. While OS/2 was similar to Windows NT (since NT actually began life as OS/2 3.0), it was absolutely nothing like the 16-bit Windows line.

OS/2 was a true 32-bit OS; Windows 3.1 was just a graphical shell running on top of DOS.

neufuse said,

OS/2 was techincally Windows, it was written by Microsoft in colaboration with IBM... you could even run windows 3.11 apps on it because it was so similar!

OS/2 could run Windows 3.11 in itself!

neufuse said,
OS/2 was techincally Windows, it was written by Microsoft in colaboration with IBM... you could even run windows 3.11 apps on it because it was so similar!


This is not the whole story. It's true that MS and IBM started to work on OS/2 1.0 together, and split because of philosophical difference. Both companies released their own version of OS/2 1.0. Both were very similar in look to Windows 3.1, but a lot more stable.

From there, MS went the NT way.

IBM started working on OS/2 2.0. That version had nothing to do with the previous one. It was designed from the ground up. It gain lots of favor with the financial industry especially in Europe, where IBM was basically giving it away inside huge mainframe deal. Version 2.1 made it the best OS you could run on a PC back then. But it was badly marketed by IBM and then they just abandonned the concept.

Warp came with version 3.0 and 4.0. They were never push and basically left to fend for themselves.