History of Windows

[Shof]

I have Bob installed on my Windows XP machine... he doesnt do much!

I miss bob, can you screenshot him for me

[Panacik]

I miss bob, can you screenshot him for me

Here ya go:

[PL_ Veteran]

REVISION 4

History_of_Microsoft_Windows.doc

And a PDF version

History_of_Microsoft_Windows.pdf

Erm, what did I change? I can't really remember. Added a Sources list, the Xbox OS, altered Windows FLP around (now that more info is here) and other things.

[+Elі Subscriber²]

Very interesting and handy, thanks for posting and taking the time to create this. One suggestion though, I would integrate the screenshots into the document itself ( not sure if this can be done with wordpad though) stuff on the web can easily change URLs etc.

[NienorGT]

You may like to view this page as well :)

http://www.levenez.com/windows/

[PL_ Veteran]

Very interesting and handy, thanks for posting and taking the time to create this. One suggestion though, I would integrate the screenshots into the document itself ( not sure if this can be done with wordpad though) stuff on the web can easily change URLs etc.

No can do. Neowin's attatchment limit is exceeded when I do that.

[NienorGT]

No can do. Neowin's attatchment limit is exceeded when I do that.

You could host it somewhere else :ermm:

[PL_ Veteran]

You could host it somewhere else :ermm:

Such as...?

[Randolph]

Such as...?

www.rapidshare.de

[whitebread]

Nice (Y)

[neo2.0]

Cool, nice work! :)

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

rather interesting! i'd like to see this develop further. i grew up w/ windows 3.1, but i never knew that much about windows history... or DOS for that matter. in fact, i only used windows 95 for 2 weeks until windows 98 came out :laugh: i basically went straight from 3.1 to 98 :|

[Ferret]

Excellent stuff - Thanks.

I knew of Microsoft dating back to the old MSDOS OS - But I don't know much about the "Unreleased Windows"

Thanks bud ;)

[PL_ Veteran]

Taking advice from some posters, I seeked out an external host. I am now using RapidShare, and am only uploading in PDF format, to keep it nice.

REVISION 5

What did I do? I added in the screenshots (as requested), and added logos, altered a few bits, added a Windows CE screenshot, and Xbox Dashboard screenshots. I also added in some information about Windows: Codename "Vienna"'s successor, which has been confirmed. More info inside.

Where does it go from here? I can definetly see room for improvement. Things all feel a bit cluttered to me, and I'm trying to think of a way to split the lines apart, so you have:

• Main Windows
  
• Windows Successor
  
• Windows CE
  
• Unreleased
  
• Experimental
  
• Xbox
  

But, all in due time. I hope you understand this isn't top priority for me, so I don't know when I'll get around to it.

EDIT: Dang, I just checked the view count. 2114 :|

[Fergie]

Nice work. :)

[riahc3]

Why the hell does everyone use Rapidshare when its crap?

Use http://www.megaupload.com

This is great for something that I need to do and Id like to download it.

[PL_ Veteran]

Why the hell does everyone use Rapidshare when its crap?

Use http://www.megaupload.com

This is great for something that I need to do and Id like to download it.

It just got recommended by a poster

Here it is on Megaupload:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MDRNQ9MQ

[Pilsbury]

IMO, grouping NT based OSes with the consumer versions is incorrect. Windows NT (retrospectively called NT3.1) has it's roots in OS/2 (which you have omitted in it's entirity), which was originally sold as both an IBM and a Microsoft OS, in fact NT still contained a lot of the original OS/2 code, which was removed in NT3.5 (hence 3.5's smaller footprint).

Also, the difference between NT3.51 and NT4 is a lot smaller than the difference between Windows 3.1 and 95. The main difference between the two is the GUI - the GUI with the 'Start' button and so on was actually issued to MSDN subscribers and partners as a preview for 3.51. A lot of Microsoft (and other) applications were actually coded not to run on NT3.51 to force the upgrade to NT4, when without this check, they would have ran perfectly.

NT was also not originally intended to run on x86 hardware, it was originally designed for the i860, which had the codename N-10, or NT, with NT being retrospectively redesignated as 'New Technology' - which explains the strange "Designed for NT Technology" message in 2000 (New Technology Technology doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?)

[PL_ Veteran]

IMO, grouping NT based OSes with the consumer versions is incorrect. Windows NT (retrospectively called NT3.1) has it's roots in OS/2 (which you have omitted in it's entirity), which was originally sold as both an IBM and a Microsoft OS, in fact NT still contained a lot of the original OS/2 code, which was removed in NT3.5 (hence 3.5's smaller footprint).

Also, the difference between NT3.51 and NT4 is a lot smaller than the difference between Windows 3.1 and 95. The main difference between the two is the GUI - the GUI with the 'Start' button and so on was actually issued to MSDN subscribers and partners as a preview for 3.51. A lot of Microsoft (and other) applications were actually coded not to run on NT3.51 to force the upgrade to NT4, when without this check, they would have ran perfectly.

NT was also not originally intended to run on x86 hardware, it was originally designed for the i860, which had the codename N-10, or NT, with NT being retrospectively redesignated as 'New Technology' - which explains the strange "Designed for NT Technology" message in 2000 (New Technology Technology doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?)

Thanks, I will take all of that into account, and work in the OS/2 line of OS as well :)

However, I'm sticking with the New Technology explanation, for 2 reasons

1. Bill Gates said it himself
   
2. Windows 2000 was released much later than the first NT - and I'm sure it says "with/using" and not "for"
   

[Bawx]

http://knuttz.net/hosted_pages/Windows-Evolution-20061109

:o

[aberflasm]

Nice work. Maybe you could include the various PLUS! addon packs that added functionality to windows (didn't IE1 first appear in 95's PLUS! edition?) I only suggest this because you added the XBOX info. Also MSBOB even though it wasn't a windows version (for the same same reason as above). Any rate, nice work!

[cchasem]

"CE" doesnt stand for anything at all? weird.

[RaisinCain]

Thanks, I will take all of that into account, and work in the OS/2 line of OS as well :)

However, I'm sticking with the New Technology explanation, for 2 reasons

1. Bill Gates said it himself
   
2. Windows 2000 was released much later than the first NT - and I'm sure it says "with/using" and not "for"
   

Windows 2000 Pro was Built on NT Technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows

[PL_ Veteran]

REVISION 6

Rapidshare

http://rapidshare.com/files/5995239/Histor...dows_3.pdf.html

Megaupload

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CB7VVOXU

I'm happy with this one. Put in a Contents page, improved picture quality, inserted some more screenshots, worked in the OS/2, MS-DOS, QDOS and CP/M systems into it (with detailed explanations). Also added prices at time of release in USD!

Enjoy :D

[Graham51]

All I can say is well done! I sure found out some new things about Windows that i didn't before :) Good old Bob: