Nostalgia: Upgrading through every version of Windows 1 to 7

Someone on Youtube calling himself TheRasteri, with some time on his hands took it upon himself to test the ability to upgrade Windows from 1.0 through to 7. Not all Windows versions were used, and in one case probably rightly so, can you guess which one was (probably purposely) skipped?

How many programs and settings could remain intact across almost twenty years of OS updates? You might be surprised, reports The Next Web.

Impressively, color settings for the desktop were kept right up to Windows 2000, after which they wouldn't stick.

If you have a spare ten minutes, it's well worth a watch, if only for the memories and the effort involved, which according to the video took hours!

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Australian ISPs may be forced to disconnect cheats in new ruling

Next Story

Microsoft resumes Windows Phone 7 update for Samsung devices

82 Comments

View more comments

I think it was a justifiable decision to use 2000 over ME, even though from the sound of it, a lot of us didn't go that route. If I had to do it all over again, I would have stuck with 98 before upgrading to XP.

eangulus said,
I am interested in what hardware specs he used for this.

more then likely its all done in a virtual machine so they can record it

eangulus said,
I am interested in what hardware specs he used for this.

In the video the author clearly stated he used a VMWare virtual machine for the testing.

Great video! I worry that he upgraded through 2000 rather than ME down to ignorance (thinking as many did that 2000 was 98's successor when it was not), but otherwise it's an interesting watch. The other thing that he gets hung up about is the colour schemes. I disagree with him; Microsoft have clearly abandoned that compatibility to wean people off the classic theme and onto the much nicer new look. Some techies will just never learn. These days computers do not struggle with the extra memory needed to improve the user interface 1000%.

mulligan2k said,
remember these are upgrades though, not fresh installs. with an upgrade the point is it keeps your settings / files / themes

But some people would not realize that they could enable Luna.

Great video but it only went back to that newfangled MS-DOS 5 - I've been a PC user since I purchased my Kaypro PC in 1985 (a turbo-XT box) and it probably ran MS-DOS 3.1. I updated my systems and built several new ones over the years since and have almost always purchased the upgrade version of the next OS. I've tried all of the consumer level versions of Windows and am happily running Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 on my current desktop (which I upgraded from XP and Vista...)

Although I can't say that keeping the old color scheme would be a deal breaker for me. The tricky part would be finding a machine around here that still had the floppy drives I would need to use to install the old OS - not many boxes come with 5 1/4" floppy drives any more. ;P

GraveDigger27 said,
Great video but it only went back to that newfangled MS-DOS 5 - I've been a PC user since I purchased my Kaypro PC in 1985 (a turbo-XT box) and it probably ran MS-DOS 3.1. I updated my systems and built several new ones over the years since and have almost always purchased the upgrade version of the next OS. I've tried all of the consumer level versions of Windows and am happily running Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 on my current desktop (which I upgraded from XP and Vista...)

Although I can't say that keeping the old color scheme would be a deal breaker for me. The tricky part would be finding a machine around here that still had the floppy drives I would need to use to install the old OS - not many boxes come with 5 1/4" floppy drives any more. ;P

I think I still have a Kaypro Z80 luggable in the basement but the CP/M disks have probably demagnetized or disintegrated by now.

He may have got doom II to run in windows 3/3.1, but I wonder if he got the sound to work.
Biggest headache I ever had with that old windows, was getting sound to work in dos games if launched within windows, then having the windows sound mess up after returning to windows.
I still remember some of the stupid $*%*@ settings!
SET SOUND=C:\PROGRA~1\CREATIVE\CTSND
SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 H5 P330 E620 T6

naap51stang said,
He may have got doom II to run in windows 3/3.1, but I wonder if he got the sound to work.
Biggest headache I ever had with that old windows, was getting sound to work in dos games if launched within windows, then having the windows sound mess up after returning to windows.
I still remember some of the stupid $*%*@ settings!
SET SOUND=C:\PROGRA~1\CREATIVE\CTSND
SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 H5 P330 E620 T6

Actually, if memory serves, the main problem with games + sound under Win 3.1 was that Win 3.1 didn't play nicely with Extended memory and a whole lot of games required Extended memory to run sounds for some reason.

EMM386.exe anyone?

Metodi Mitov said,

Actually, if memory serves, the main problem with games + sound under Win 3.1 was that Win 3.1 didn't play nicely with Extended memory and a whole lot of games required Extended memory to run sounds for some reason.

EMM386.exe anyone?

Not so much w/sound, just in general.

It had to do with the real mode and protected mode differences.

Also most games wanted expanded memory, not extended. (Change that in your post, and you will about spot on.)

Win3.x liked extended memory, as expanded memory was used in real mode, and Win3.1 ran in protected mode, although it could be booted into real mode, which people would do for games or to run Win2.x (Win/386) applications.

thenetavenger said,

Not so much w/sound, just in general.

It had to do with the real mode and protected mode differences.

Also most games wanted expanded memory, not extended. (Change that in your post, and you will about spot on.)

Win3.x liked extended memory, as expanded memory was used in real mode, and Win3.1 ran in protected mode, although it could be booted into real mode, which people would do for games or to run Win2.x (Win/386) applications.

Fair enough. It's been a while, not to mention that I was quite young back then... something like 10-11 years old, so I don't recall the exact details nor did I care too much at the time to be honest. Was more interested in getting a game with sound than the exact terms of what was used to make it happen. Still, I do recall poking around in autoexec.bat and config.sys on more than one occasion.

I also went from 98 to 2000 to XP. 2000 was released earlier as it's mentioned, and Me just plained sucked. 2000 being so stable (and being called 2000 which confused people into buying it as an upgrade to 98) was great, and allowed for a lot of programs to become compatible with the NT branch. That's why a lot of stuff was alredy NT-compatible by the time XP was released

Julius Caro said,
I also went from 98 to 2000 to XP. 2000 was released earlier as it's mentioned, and Me just plained sucked. 2000 being so stable (and being called 2000 which confused people into buying it as an upgrade to 98) was great, and allowed for a lot of programs to become compatible with the NT branch. That's why a lot of stuff was alredy NT-compatible by the time XP was released

Yeah the confusion was definitely Microsoft's fault, but they originally thought 2000 was going to be the next consumer version. They changed the name from NT 5.0 to 2000 during beta. When it became clear that it wasn't going to work out the way they planned they should have changed the name back to NT I think.

TRC said,

Yeah the confusion was definitely Microsoft's fault, but they originally thought 2000 was going to be the next consumer version. They changed the name from NT 5.0 to 2000 during beta. When it became clear that it wasn't going to work out the way they planned they should have changed the name back to NT I think.

The NT 5.0 beta was insanely long, with a major revision between beta 1 and beta 2 (a lot like Vista happened).

However there was very little talk about NT 5.0 replacing Win9x, it was always known that NT 5.0 would splinter off a few consumers, but it was not going to be designed with the planned consumer features that shipped in WinXP.

For example, they wanted usability items and consumer repair features like 'System Restore' that were deemed to be important for a consumer version, as repairing and managing NT was out of the scope of most consumers and computer tech people outside of the 'geek' and corporate worlds.


The naming didn't have anything to do with it being a consumer version, it had more to do with the other 'marketing' changes in Microsoft, that was shoving the 'year' into the product name that started with Windows95 and Office95, which didn't work out so well at the time.

Commenting is disabled on this article.