Windows Is 22 Years Old

Pop the Champaign, its time to celebrate! The Windows operating system has turned 22. That's right, considering the fact that Windows 1.0 was made available on November 20, 1985, the platform is 22 years old this week. The event passed almost unnoticed, and certainly the Redmond company failed to linger on the past. With every effort poured into pushing Windows Vista into the foreground, Microsoft simply left the 22nd anniversary of Windows slip by unnoticed. The fact of the matter is that there is no Champaign to pop.

"Windows provides unprecedented power to users today and a foundation for hardware and software advancements of the next few years. It is unique software designed for the serious PC user, who places high value on the productivity that a personal computer can bring", these are the words of Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft, marking the release of Windows 1.0.

By 1985, Microsoft has already moved out of Albuquerque, New Mexico and into Bellevue, Washington, and was now extending the DOS operating system with the "Windows operating environment". Windows 1.0 came to the table with a price tag of $99 and signaled the birth of the user interface delivering such programs as Windows Write and Windows Paint.

View: Full Article @ Softpedia

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

IBM patent could pause your DVD movie for Ads

Next Story

Microsoft: Windows Genuine Advantage works!

48 Comments

View more comments

Champaign - a city located in Champaign County, Illinois with a population over 75,000 and also home to the wonderful University of Illinois
champagne - sparkling wine

I'm usually not a stickler for spelling, but you rarely see this example.

For those complaining about stealing, DON'T HATE THE PLAYER, HATE THE GAME. And plus, Microsoft started with Windows, which means it did not need the mouse in the start. Windows made Microsoft big, not the mouse.

And for the Apple part. Well Apple was created before, but it must have not been good if Windows over powered it so easily.

Well Apple was created before, but it must have not been good if Windows over powered it so easily.

Well, that's an oversimplification of the PC vs Apple history. The Apple was hugely popular at a time -- what helped MS was more about marketing strategies than their software quality alone. Building software for IBM to get a foot in proved to be a pretty good idea, not that the software in question was necessarily excellent. MS continued the tradition to build for widely available hardware and this lives on to this day. Microsoft still makes mostly PC-compatible software, while Apple build things for their own hardware.

There are advantages to both approaches; the more widely and easily available software obviously has a major advantage in usage share, while the other one custom built for specific hardware has the advantage in e.g. stability, where the software developer being the same company can make far more assumptions on the hardware without having to rely on third-party drivers nearly as much. And less software complexity of that kind almost always use to result in less bugs and general problems.

So it depends on the definition of "good". "Good" market penetration and software availability? Try Windows. "Good" ease of use, stability, and little fuss? Try a Mac. "Good" customization on several levels from the available code, and a strong community spirit? Try Linux.

MS exists today with the ability to sell so many substandard software products to so many unsuspecting people because of . . .


Licensing.

Not quality. Not reliability. Not even ease-of-use.

It's a way to achieve ubiquity, which in time, renders unnecessary the need to design effectively, innovate, and focus on heavy R&D because your product is everywhere, all the time, drowning out competing products. Boom. Instant source of long-term cash flow that simply multiplies by leaps and bounds.

Until of course, the competition shows some guts and drive and speaks up. Quality isn't about ubiquity. It's about inspiring the more discerning and discriminating among us. It'll ensure a much smaller user base than the competition, but quality is by nature a rare thing, and your target market will begin to understand . . . and show up with cash in hand. It's how 8% of the market makes 100% of your revenue. And by revenue, I mean fat revenue. The only bloat in the leaner, meaner competition is in their bank account.

Ubiquity has nothing to do with anything. Just means there's a lot of something. Like dust and cockroaches. MS will live forever. Perhaps in time as only a point-of-sale manufacturer. But forever, all the same.

Actually the view that Microsoft didn't ever in its history do anything better than its competitors except for market strategy is itself BS.

As for market strategy Microsoft came up with the right business model: work on a diversity of computers and devices, while providing a familiar, common interface. Macs stuck to devices built by Apple, and *nix doesn't have a common interface. This is the platform on which Microsoft was able to gain momentum on.

Once on this foothold, it made the center of its strategy creating tools for developers, ie Steve Balmer's mantra developers developers developers, because it realized an OS was about the software that could be made on it.

BUT, the business model Microsoft chose drove some important interface models, including OLE and now .NET . Because Microsoft chose to create what was needed, a "platform OS", it has bee the leader in pushing platforms and standards to the market, including now being a major backer of XML.

You may have misgivings about how Microsoft mishandles this role, ie with HTML, but remember IE was the first browser to adopt CSS specifications, while Netscape was doing some other stuff.

Additionally this focus, has over time led to a lot of interface standardization, that was once in a few applications, like context menus, visual cues, taskbars, etc. A lot that is in newer versions of MacOS was only added after Microsoft put them in Windows 95. At that time MacOS had been lagging technologically and in usability.

It's sad that these news stories always tun into Apple vs. Microsoft wars. Was Apple even mentioned in the article?

Does the article have the slightest thing to do with who invented the mouse or who came up with the idea?

Thanks for transforming the computer industry and creating countless jobs Microsoft, and happy birthday Windows.

You know how it goes... when there's a story about Windows or MS, it's OK to bash it/them. When it's a story about Apple, you're nothing but a troll if you make ANY comment other then the highest of praise. It somewhat reminds me of the women who say men are sexist, then turn around and say all men are pigs. The whole (hole) double standard thing.

RAID 0 said,
You know how it goes... when there's a story about Windows or MS, it's OK to bash it/them. When it's a story about Apple, you're nothing but a troll if you make ANY comment other then the highest of praise. It somewhat reminds me of the women who say men are sexist, then turn around and say all men are pigs. The whole (hole) double standard thing.

Thats very strange coming from you Raid, as you are displaying the double standards that you upset about, any Apple story you leap in with a bash whether its personal opinion or fact, so the agrrievment about anything but the slightest praise is laughable. If you're going to bash as you do, don't turn round now and start crying about it if it gets returned.

As for bringing Mac into it, well, it doesn't seem to be fully mac users doing it in this thread, cguy doing the complaining, brought them into it aswell

For the record, I don't I have ever bashed XP or Vista on here, so you can't complain about me been two faced, unlike some.

OK. Let's blame the person who first invented the Transistor because the computer industry stole it to build computers and hardware, not to mention OS companies that took advantage of this and made software that is being ran with transistors.

ajua said,
OK. Let's blame the person who first invented the Transistor because the computer industry stole it to build computers and hardware, not to mention OS companies that took advantage of this and made software that is being ran with transistors.

Don't forget theft of the first protons and electrons.

But I hear you with the comparison. A lot of these users need to learn to shut up and face the facts. Use the OS you want to use and if you have to come on here to argue with other people, you really need to get a life. Mind you, when I was 14 and had no life many moons ago, I did the same things they do. I guess some people just never grow out of it.

Shiranui said,
So hows about a nice 22% discount on your entire Vista lineup?

Next you'll recommend them to have a 100% discount on their windows when it have reached 100 years old. But then, that's IF Microsoft still exists at that time.

MY

happy birthday, and thanks for making the computer world as manageable as possible.

i would hate to live in a world where every equally crappy os with as little as 5% user base has a equal share of the pie, and every each one of them are setting their own hardwares and software standards ...

ricknl said,
5% market share belongs to the US market only. Worldwide they have far less market share.

argh ... vulcan mind meld ...

Commenting is disabled on this article.