61–68 of 68 posts
Was DOS considered to be better than Windows back then?
Before Win2K, Windows ran on DOS.
Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.
Before that, there was Windows NT 3.1 (the first version), NT 3.5, NT 3.51 and NT 4.
Windows 2000 was the fifth version of Windows that did not need DOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before Win2K, Windows ran on DOS.
That is incorrect. Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5. Before that, there was Windows NT 3.1 (the first version), NT 3.5, NT 3.51 and NT 4. Windows 2000 was the fifth version of Windows that did not need DOS.
And as Windows NT was a pure 32 bit OS, where the Dos based Windows were 16/32 bits.
Windows NT was designed by Dave Cutler and released from July 27, 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
By that time there were already 5 editions of Dos based Windows: 1/2/3.0/3.1/3.11.
The first Dos based Windows was released much earlier: November 20, 1985
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0x
To add to the confusion there were a Dos based Windows 3.0 and 3.1 and a Windows NT 3.0 and 3.1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the olden DOS days, we used stuff like Allegro to make games that used the framebuffer.
Allegro is still a thing among some hobbyists, I used it years ago for dome experiments first on Windows and then on Linux.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is incorrect. Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5. Before that, there was Windows NT 3.1 (the first version), NT 3.5, NT 3.51 and NT 4. Windows 2000 was the fifth version of Windows that did not need DOS.
You are thinking of Windows NT family which is not the same as Dos based Windows 1/2/3.0/3.1/3.11/95/98 And as Windows NT was a pure 32 bit OS, where the Dos based Windows were 16/32 bits. Windows NT was designed by Dave Cutler and released from July 27, 1993. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT By that time there were already 5 editions of Dos based Windows: 1/2/3.0/3.1/3.11. The first Dos based Windows was rel…
Your claim is wrong. You said that the first Windows not based on DOS was 2000; that is not true. The first Windows not based on DOS was in 1993.
What name Microsoft marketing put on it is irrelevant. If you opened a command prompt on Windows 2000 and typed `ver`, it said Windows NT 5.0.
Do not get misled by branding. As Terry Pratchett said:
"Zoon tribes are very proud of their Liars. Other races get very annoyed about all this. They feel like the Zoon ought to have adopted more suitable titles, like ‘diplomat’ or ‘public relations officer.’ They feel they are poking fun of the whole thing." - Equal Rites
Marketing means lying. Marketing took the letters "NT" out of Windows 2000's name, but that does not mean it was the first product of its kind. It was not. It was the fifth.
Was DOS considered to be better than Windows back then?
Before Win2K, Windows ran on DOS.
If you mean the first non-DOS Windows without a parallel DOS-based line, that would be Windows XP, a bit after Win2K (2K was, I think, originally planned as the convergence version, but that plan was abandoned.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are thinking of Windows NT family which is not the same as Dos based Windows 1/2/3.0/3.1/3.11/95/98 And as Windows NT was a pure 32 bit OS, where the Dos based Windows were 16/32 bits. Windows NT was designed by Dave Cutler and released from July 27, 1993. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT By that time there were already 5 editions of Dos based Windows: 1/2/3.0/3.1/3.11. The first Dos based Windows was rel…
I used Windows 2.01 at the time, and I deployed NT 3.1 in production. Your claim is wrong. You said that the first Windows not based on DOS was 2000; that is not true. The first Windows not based on DOS was in 1993. What name Microsoft marketing put on it is irrelevant. If you opened a command prompt on Windows 2000 and typed `ver`, it said Windows NT 5.0. Do not get misled by branding. As Terry Pratchett said: "Zoon…
BTW I used Windows 1.1 on a PC XT. At the time, my employer wanted to use computers to teach employees technical subjects (adult education). My employer was Direction Général des Télécoms (now Orange) and the department was DFPT (in Montpellier/France) (I am 65 yo).
When I saw what was needed to just program a window with a simple text I was horrified. In DOS just a few lines were enough, on Windows 1.1 it was several hundred of lines!
My company much later used software such as Macromedia to make computer based learning. It ran on (Dos based) Windows 3.11, I think (but I am not sure ) that is was DOS 4 or maybe 5.
I read that as DR DOS (Digital Research) which I was enamored of until MS DOS 5.0 came out. Digital Research made GEM (a Mac-like desktop GUI) and included a pared down version called ViewMAX in DR DOS 5.0 but ultimately didn't deliver on providing a Mac-like interface.
DR didn't deliver a Mac-like interface on DOS because Apple sued them: https://www.osnews.com/story/26322/apple-vs-dri-the-iotheri-... But GEM ran on 2 different platforms: DOS PCs, and on the Atari ST. The Atari version was not affected by Apple's lawsuit and delivered a very slick interface. https://aranym.github.io/screenshots.html
What can be seen there is a work of love/passion, from not that much people, running in an emulator, which enables configurations which were either very expensive, rare, or didn't even ever exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DR didn't deliver a Mac-like interface on DOS because Apple sued them: https://www.osnews.com/story/26322/apple-vs-dri-the-iotheri-... But GEM ran on 2 different platforms: DOS PCs, and on the Atari ST. The Atari version was not affected by Apple's lawsuit and delivered a very slick interface. https://aranym.github.io/screenshots.html
Ahem! Sorry, those screenies don't show GEM as it looked at the times. That looks like something from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiNT which although started early after, wasn't that common and/or usable. It got a boost in development much later only, IIRC. What can be seen there is a work of love/passion, from not that much people, running in an emulator, which enables configurations which were either very expensi…
What I am saying is much simpler: that DR didn't deliver a Mac-like GEM on the PC for the excellent reason that Apple sued them to stop them doing it. That's why PC GEM got crippled, and ended up as just a file manager/app launcher in the form of ViewMax.
(It is also worth nothing that Caldera subsidiary Lineo made GEM GPL around the turn of the century, and since then, PC GEM regained all the features Apple made DR remove and more, including Bézier curve support and things.)
All I am saying is that Atari GEM wasn't crippled, was a popular and well-loved GUI that people are still using and working on even today.