Windows' birthday !!!

Today it’s exactly 25 years ago that Microsoft released Windows 1.0. Congrats to M$ for reaching this Milestone :wink:

Windows and the third-party products that have been written to run in windows, amazing advances, a wonder really.

Wow - 9 years before I was born :slight_smile: -

Actually come to think of it SuSE existed before I was born by a few months (first version of SuSE came out in March 1994 and I was born June 1994)

Anyway, congrats to Microsoft for this milestone

My fave product from MS was DOS… version 6.22 :smiley: never been a big Windows fan :confused: (Win7 is decent enough I guess)

Happy Birthday Microsoft. Wish I’d bought lots of your stock back then.

Windows 1.0 - 2.x sucked, OS/2 was much better.
Windows 3.0 took much from OS/2 but ran on top of DOS where OS/2 was independent of DOS.
Windows 3.11 (or Windows for Workgroups) was good. I think this is the one that killed off OS/2.
Windows 98 was good.
Windows 98SE was very good.
Windows ME sucked.
Windows NT sucked big time.
Windows 2000 was good.
Windows XP SP1-SP3 was/is very good.
Windows MCE sucked big time.
Windows Vista not good.
Windows 7 is better than Vista but slightly less than Windows XP SP3. It still feels like it’s running on top of DOS with a lot more hidden bells and whistles, like programs still use svchost.exe to run services, there’s not a clear method to link folders and files or move hidden linked folders (called libraries in Windows 7), maybe I’m too use to Linux but it seems difficult trace error reports.

Don’t know much about the server editions.

Hash: SHA1

On win2k3 I update the IE as a critical update as the system says and
when finished it rebooted without prompt… (leaving 20 angry users),
that was the last time I use a M$ server


Microsoft Windows is like air conditioning
Stops working when you open a window.
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE -


I don’t like anything which has microsoft sign on it.

Interesting, why is that?


95 is missing in your list. That’s the one which killed OS/2.
IMHO NT server was the best for its time and 2000 the worst of all time (specially regarding the cohabitation with other OS … although you could say the same nowadays from Windows7) .

I don’t know about the “Happy Birthday”.

just guessing … because the Devil sent Microsoft on Earth to pollute your brain, as he sent Monsanto to poison your body.

Today it’s exactly 25 years ago that Microsoft released Windows 1.0.

That was my first experience with a new user interface (compared to CP/M 2.2 and MSDos). It had to be loaded from 2 floppies. Windows 1.0 came very late, about half a year after Apple abandoned the Lisa project (oh boy, I really wanted to have a Lisa, but could not afford it).

Happy Birthday Microsoft. The event reminds me that I was a MS user too - long ago.

M$???Vade retro satana!!!

Wow, I forgot Windows 95! Should I assume it wasn’t that good?

Really WinNT over W2K? IMHO the opposite.
I remember WinNT as having lots of hardware driver problems, wouldn’t run a number of games and other problems.
Likewise W2K fixed a bunch of WinNT issues, had better compatibility and generally ran better.

NT had a driver (I guess it was called pinball) for the HPFS fileystem. W2K removed that driver and btw the OS/2 bootmanager partition as well. Technically speaking, the real OS/2 killer was W2K. The way the diskmanager handled logical partitions and spent hours scanning foreign partitions it could not read, it became incredibely easy to lockout oneself. W2K has just been all long a nightmare for multibooters.

Likewise W2K fixed a bunch of WinNT issues, had better compatibility and generally ran better.

Yes. But this is the ordinary purpose of the next OS release.

Yes I was speaking from the single OS boot and desktop perspective.

please try again wrote:
> Technically speaking, the real OS/2 killer was W2K.

truthfully speaking, the real OS/2 killer was IBM…

they just stopped supporting it…the front office chopped up the OS/2
side and sent them to other projects…but kept a capability around to
do the minimum required to support existing commercial support
contracts…and would not let them spend one minute improving,
marketing, etc etc etc…

who know why? i think it was a pure business decision to support
Windows as a valid desktop to interact directly with their back office
mainframes which is where the big bucks were all along…OS/2 desktop
sales to the corporations was chicken feed compared to the money they
made with on-site support of Windows…

CAVEAT: [posted via NNTP w/openSUSE 10.3]

Because microsoft sabotage Linux in Hellas. Microsoft uses unlawful means to promote its products here and restricts linux users with contracts with computer companies to produce products only compatible with windows and not for Linux. That’s why!!!

Good heavens. That should be stopped. The FOSS ppl should be told about that – they would surely sue if the knew about that. Perhaps you should tell them.

do you not know that that is common M$ practice?

do you not know that Microsoft has been sued by more than one nation
and been found guilty of unlawful business practices…

and been fined millions of dollars? and required to comply with the law…

surely you tease us, right?

CAVEAT: [posted via NNTP w/openSUSE 10.3]

By “technically” I just meant as (one of the) technical consequence(s).
“truthfully speaking”, you’re absolutely right.