Amazing 1993 Video of Windows NT 3.1

By Atomic Wanderer Chicken
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Atomic Wanderer Chicken

Posted
Posted



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)!
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1148884-amazing-1993-video-of-windows-nt-31/
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

Joshie

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

+Frank B. Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

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.

1265456138.or.105738.PNG

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

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?

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

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.

IBM was (and still is) heavily enterprise-oriented - a legacy of their mainframe business. They didn't even market LAN Server (the server side of OS/2) very hard. Ordinary consumers and SMBs? They willingly - practically gleefully - steered those to Microsoft and LAN Manager (and eventually NT) before, during, and after the split - they wanted no part of such a plebian customer base. (I had, in fact, personally told IBM Mid-Atlantic's marketing mavens that if they didn't get their act together, Microsoft and Windows 95 would eat their lunch - in June of 1995.) OS/2 - as far back as 2.1 - was a squandered opportunity; OS/2 3.x - and even Warp (OS/2 4.x) were simply more obvious. (Look at eComStation - it is, in fact, OS/2 4.52 at the core. It's as least as viable as any Linux distribution, and supports more hardware than quite a few of them. However, even Ubuntu has a bigger word-of-mouth push then eCS does.)

Grand Master

+Frank B. Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

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?

IBM did try to market OS/2 to consumers. The older ones of us will remember the Warp 3-era commercials. Here in .de two of the biggest OEMs at the time - Vobis and Escom - even pre-installed OS/2 Warp 3 instead of DOS/Windows for a while in 1994/early 1995.

One reason which killed OS/2 was the lack of good native applications for it. Ironically you could say Win-OS2 (the Windows 3.x sub-system built in to OS/2 from version 2.0 on) was one cause for this - why would 3rd party developers port applications to OS/2 when you can simply run the Windows version on it?

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

IBM did try to market OS/2 to consumers. The older ones of us will remember the Warp 3-era commercials. Here in .de two of the biggest OEMs at the time - Vobis and Escom - even pre-installed OS/2 Warp 3 instead of DOS/Windows for a while in 1994/early 1995.

One reason which killed OS/2 was the lack of good native applications for it. Ironically you could say Win-OS2 (the Windows 3.x sub-system built in to OS/2 from version 2.0 on) was one cause for this - why would 3rd party developers port applications to OS/2 when you can simply run the Windows version on it?

Europe in general, and Germany/the Low Countries in particular, were the exceptions that, unfortunately, proved the rule. IBM didn't have a big Systems Group business in Europe - however, they DID have a solid relationship with NIXDORF (a major wheel in the PC business in Europe) which was responsible for a major part of the German OS/2 push.

There was no mirror to NIXDORF in North America, however.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States

      By +Edouard · Posted

      By the sounds of that wall of Fox News propaganda gibberish attacking the Democratic Party you've already had plenty of "juices" flowing this morning. You've ruined what could have been a productive comment thread with your bias post.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States

      By WaltC · Posted

      (Topic to get the juices flowing this Sunday morning!...) Actually, the situation has almost nothing to do with "lack of skills", especially since assembly-line skills can be taught to anyone, including Americans, certainly. Rather, the inadequacy-to-impossibility of large-scale tech manufacturing in America today, and the reasons why America finds tech manufacturing completely onerous in the 21st century, has to do with politically driven laws amid a plethora of non-scientific, utterly politicized "science-fact" that is patently false, punitive business taxation at every turn, an array of judicial fines of unimaginable scope and complexity, and, last but not least, American unionization strictures that serve to actually slay job creation and hobble all such manufacturing endeavors in America before they can get off the ground. Globalism emerged, they tell us, as the needed answer to American hubris and an unholy American drive to excel. Unless one is buried under mounds of political propaganda, it's easy to see the absurdity of labeling the employees of SpaceX, for instance, as "unskilled labor"... Etc. ad infinitum. At one time in the recent past, American manufacturing prowess was the envy of the world in a wide variety of technical fields! The current federal and state government roadblocks against America becoming competitive globally in tech manufacturing are considerable, it's true, as anyone with a working brain knows. But remarkably, that is only half the story! The other half of the story is, of course, the corporations themselves... Chinese tech manufacturing is simply unassailable in terms of profits, because the Chinese government wants to see its tech manufacturing second-to-none globally so that no companies/nations can compete in terms of ROI, and China has completely succeeded in that goal. Let's tic-off a few things: *Chinese tariff policies are set according to what is considered best for Chinese business, Chinese employees, and the Chinese people. Huge difference with how things are done with tariffs in the US--as the US government (SCOTUS in this case, Congress in others) plainly feels that tariffs are "unfair" for the limited number of citizens who may pay them, whereas nothing is "unfair" when Congress considers the Personal Income Tax rates to be infinitely hike-able, along with infinitely enlarging annual budget deficits. *The Chinese government boldly subsidizes Chinese companies to artificially amplify their profits. *The Chinese government deliberately refuses to avidly demonize Chinese businesses and does not consider Chinese businesses "the enemy", so very unlike American (D)s these days. *Chinese labor laws and businesses are allowed to set their own labor policies according to what Chinese companies consider is best for companies and their employees... Simply put, American workers in tech manufacturing are not allowed to set their own labor policies! It is the height of hypocrisy for Americans to decry working conditions in China while simultaneously ensuring that American products are manufactured in China, not in the US, simply to maximize profits. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, of course, absolutely nothing. But there is plenty wrong with attempts to normalize hypocrisy of this kind! But rank hypocrisy and the (D) party in the US are longtime bedfellows... The current government in Washington is working overtime to see if it can toss out the horribly poor, failed economic policies of the past, while the (D)s still in Washington work very hard to bring back the stupidity whenever possible. With the right policies in place, America can be an infinitely competitive manufacturer.
    • Politically funny images of the World

      By +Edouard · Posted

    • The official Funny Pictures thread

      By +Edouard · Posted

    • eSound Music 3.0.0

      By Copernic · Posted

      eSound Music 3.0.0 by Razvan Serea eSound Music is a free music streaming app that gives you access to over 150 million tracks from all genres. It allows you to search and listen to your favorite songs, create personalized playlists, and explore trending music. With an intuitive interface and smart search, discovering new artists and hits is fast and easy. You can even stream music in the background while using other apps. One of eSound’s standout features is its offline mode, letting you download and listen without internet access. eSound is widely compatible, working seamlessly across Windows, macOS, Linux, iPhone, iPad, Android, HarmonyOS, Amazon Fire devices, CarPlay, Android Auto, and more. eSound Music key features: Over 150 million tracks available Smart search for songs, artists, albums, and playlists Personalized song recommendations Continuous playback with auto-generated playlists Offline mode with song and playlist downloads Daily-updated trending charts and top songs Sleep timer to auto-stop playback High-quality audio support Customizable playlists and favorites Support for Apple CarPlay and Android Auto Works on Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android, HarmonyOS, Amazon Fire, and more Cross-device sync via account login Background playback while using other apps Download: eSound Music 64-bit | Portable | ~160.0 MB (Free, paid upgrade available) Download: ARM64 | 116.0 MB Links: eSound Music Website | Screenshot | Web Player | Other OSes Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware

  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      508
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      152
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!