What is Digg?86 Comments
- thecorch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35This "history" includes Windows 3.11 NT and Windows 2000 but totally misses Windows NT (4).
- crispytown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33This was a copy of the images from Wikipedia site. The digg should link to the url below....
On Wikipedia you can see the history of windows with screen shots that also includes os's like Win 2003 server, Win 2007 server, Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, and Win NT 4.0. Which was left out of the copy. There is also a nice flow chart towards the bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Seems like the biggest jump they made was the step to 95. Then the step to XP. 95-98 and xp-Vista don't seem all that groundbreaking.
- jmarcin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Shouldn't there be a BSOD in there for the sake of completeness?
- Xanin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19mmm...nostalgia smells good
- rudy23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15to be honest from a structure perspective windows looks the same after 95.
- dominasian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13good to see minesweeper hasn't changed much through time
- danknerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9what about Microsoft BOB!!!!!!!!!!!!
- nogami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I was thinking the same thing myself. NT4 was actually quite a nice operating system. It was pretty solid and fast on a good machine.
- Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You beat me to it. NT4 was my favorite. If it had drivers for modern hardware, I might still be using it.
- xdcdx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I would say the important step is from 98 to 2000 (ME was a bastardization of 98). XP, initially was a kind of bloated version of 2000.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I remember using Windows 3.1.1 and thinking that it was the best thing ever. I actually knew someone who still used Windows 3.1 up until a couple of years ago. :)
- mobilehavoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I feel so old, I remember the days of 3.11 and when running 640x480 at 16-bit color depth was l33t.
- pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's interesting to look back at the things that were cutting edge at the time and have them feel so antiquated. I wonder what it will feel like to look back at the latest operating systems in 20 years. It's hard to completely wrap your mind around.
- Cymrubeats, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Is that a Dock at the bottom of the screen in the Win 1.0 pic? :))
- Egotrippin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4NT4 was the *****. I had a 95 home computer back in the day, then my dadbrought home a system with NT4 on it from work, and I never turned back. God I loved that old thing.
- SeBBBe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"SeBBBe, Sombody hasn't heard of DosBox :)"
I dont know about you, but I prefer playing the oldies on old hardware. It's just something else. CRT monitor, that smell, the text based bios... Its a great nostalgic feeling. DosBox is nice, but it aint the same thing. - chris4404, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4In the good idea but not practical column.
For those of you who don't know Neptune is the codename for the failed Windows 2000 "Home Edition." The original idea was a NT derivement for home but it was easier to crank out a refresh of 9X then to reinvent the wheel and they held off the integration till whistler. - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4For a long time, Windows was the best there was for what it was used for. We know now that they got their position by making illegal agreements and so forth, but still - Windows was the best choice for many. The computing industry was different back then.
- jamend, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They also skipped W-W-W-Windows 386.
- Disko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Other (more accurate) screenshots were posted yesterday. ;)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredphotos30/ - Waterrat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3 Windows 3.0,gone but not forgotten....And I remember how excited we all were when '95 came out and I loaded it from a stack of floppies a friend gave me...
Er,was that illegal? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4this has been on the front page a lot, its really cool though..imagine what computers will do/look like in 20 years from now
- williebee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3After running a business for 4 years on paper. Windows 95 was like a gift from God
NEC 75mhz with 1 Gb hard drive $3100.00, Good times. - stephbu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You gotta love a little bit of Eno...
- astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Windows 2.0 marketing video from 1987. The Windows 386 Rap!
You do not want to be under the influence of any illicit substances when you watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-rGzIOEIJE&mode=related
More of the video, with an actual demo of Windows 2.0 is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGO2hVA3P58&mode=related - ez12a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Interesting they remembered Windows ME.
- vajra918, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4SeBBBe, Sombody hasn't heard of DosBox :)
- stephbu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's easy to constantly change when you don't care about your legacy. The amazing thing about Win32 API is being able to fire up Win95/WinNT era applications working on WinVista with little or no change. That's what makes $Bn businesses...
- schoate09, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Great site, love it. As I'm now running on the stunningly beautiful Vista, Its a great look back to reminisce for a little.
- DMCer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"evolutions of the UI and you can see a clear progression (with some debate) year after year. Arguably Windows has spent quite a long time slowly getting better."
Yeah, because you can REALLY tell the difference between screenshots 6,7,8, and 9. Windows went from a copy of the Mac, to independent and ugly, to 'still ugly', to Vista (which, in my month of testing, is XP with a new skin, bundled with some media apps). Bury the truth. - stephbu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Doh meant no such thing as NT 3.11...
- stephbu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry bb - but the statement that "WinXP was built around Win3.x" is a completely inaccurate. While the API names may remain relatively unchanged between Win16 and Win32/Win64, the similarities end there.
Fundamental differences run very deep ranging from OS implementation (Win3.x was a DOS application, WinXP is a true bootable OS), through basic processing primatives such as kernel security objects, pre-emptive multiproc/multithread support, to switching memory management from 16bit near/far addressing to 32/64bit contiguous addressing and page management. - elbergel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ok, does the word UBIQUITOUS have to be used in EVERY Microsoft article?
- Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think I remember something along those lines here on digg yesterday. If you look a few pages in, you may be able to find it.
- PuffyC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OS/2 good? Only if you didn't have to use it. Yuck. There's a reason Microsoft ditched OS/2 and went in the Windows direction instead.
- tumbleweed05, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5very interesting. even tho im a mac user myself.
- Egotrippin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I still have a Win98SE machine in the corner that I occasionly get on to play some of my OLDER OLDER games.
- ggriffit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nostalgia just seems to smell!
Anyone else notice that the majority of the comments are negative about all releases. They minimize the release saying it was a simple bug fix, mostly addressed security issues, and even reference the "Mistake Edition." - stephbu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No such thing as WinNT 3.1 - NT only appeared as versions 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0.
I had the benefit of running NT 3.1 on whole 32Mb of RAM at one point when I 1st joined MS. - Visk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+195 has to be my favorite...
I Windows 95's login sound setup in Vista's Login screen. Beautiful :) - alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've only heard of BOB, thank God!
- PuffyC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Close, but the real reason Microsoft became what they are today was because they understood that applications drove platforms, not the other way around. Microsoft was hellbent on becoming the single best platform on which to develop apps and remain so to this day. They bent over backwards to be the developers best friend. Nobody buys an OS, they buy apps and then choose a platform that can run them. It is this that keeps Linux and OSX on the sidelines. It was this that killed OS/2 Warp and all the other platforms that came along at one time or another. Linux and OSX can be kick ass all day long but without killer apps they'll always be where they are today.
- stephbu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bob was an application - not an OS. Ran like a dog at the time - but actually quite usable with CPU's 10x faster :)
- Medusausi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Windows 1.0 pretty much ended my FORTRAN enthusiasm.
- DonCarcharo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What's interesting here is that if you look at the progress of Windows there's two (though now you may consider it three) main evolutions of the UI and you can see a clear progression (with some debate) year after year. Arguably Windows has spent quite a long time slowly getting better.
If you do the same for the Mac OS, you'd see that Apple hit a plateau early on and then sat stagnant for some time while Microsoft played catch-up. Even now the basic look of the Mac OS hasn't changed much since 1984 which either says a lot about the success of the original design of the Mac UI or the stubbornness of the company. Sometimes it's hard to tell which. :) - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"""The biggest reason that Microsoft Windows is used more then any operating system is that it carries more software then any other operating system from the first time MS Windows was created to the present day."""
This is not quite accurate, I'm afraid. Speaking as someone who was around at the time and using other systems, the selection of software and functionality for windows was really quite paltry initially, especially compared to other systems around at the time which is part of why the first few versions weren't that successful. Of course, what didn't hurt was that Microsoft were able to shift their own software catalogue onto it as a platform (and make interesting moves in regard to competing softwares).
Some of the main reasons for windows becoming so popular have been decided in court, although I don't think we need to cover that where we're all happily having a nostalgia trip. :-) - kjart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Seems like the biggest jump they made was the step to 95. Then the step to XP. 95-98 and xp-Vista don't seem all that groundbreaking."
I agree with you on Win 3.11 -> Win 95 being the biggest, but I'd say that XP -> Vista comes in second (remember, we're talking visuals). Start button is completely different, transparency, gadgets, etc. I'm not raving about features, but this is cosmetically quite different from XP, whereas XP just felt more like a new color scheme for 2k to me. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's really not that exhaustive as a history of windows - there's a lot missed out.
Still, it brings back memories of old jobs, colleagues, clients etc.
Dugg for pure nostalgia value. - winnopeg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I do believe the blue screen of death is missing from that collection.
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is