Well, as I recall, the versions of "windows" prior to 3.0 we considered DOSShell extensions. MSDOS was still the boot OS and the "windows" were not really GUI, more like ansi graphics...
Windows 3.0 introduced a real graphical shell, and the product was integrated so that DOS booted straight into the GUI shell. Still technically not an OS, as DOS was still the boot loader.
I suppose WindowsNT was the first real Windows OS, but since that product was largely based on OS/2, I'm not sure how to score that one...
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jerry C. Adams
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:13 PM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: GoFaster alternative
I knew it went back to 1.0, but this is the first time I've ever "spoken"
with anyone that actually used/saw it. I actually started on 3.0; even that
was a mess. I stayed with PC-DOS for quite awhile just to be sure that I
had something stable to use.
Jerry C. Adams
IBM i Programmer/Analyst
Margaret Mead was a good role model, but she may not have looked good in a
swimsuit. - Leonard Horne, Miss America Pageant director
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Yeung
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 11:43 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: GoFaster alternative
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Jerry C. Adams <midrange@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I point out that there are Windows versions from 3.1 to Win7
Remarkably enough, Microsoft really did start numbering at 1, not at 3.1.
My dad bought Windows 1.0 for our IBM PC. It was not very fast on our 4.77
MHz processor, even with our maxed-out 640 KB RAM, but it was still pretty
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l