The History of Microsoft Windows

[Dr. OneWay]

So, yeah, I've been interested in this for awhile. I checked out the Wikipedia entry, which took me forever to read, but was very informative. Can anyone describe the history, what versions they've had, problems with them, etc?:)

For me, the oldest version of Windows I've used was 95, when I was . . four. I can't say anything about any earlier versions, but I can say that I own 95, NT 4.0, 98 (Without a Key :p ), 2000, and XP, and all of them have had their share of problems. I can definitely say that 2000 and XP I had for the longest (just recently updated to XP), these two were the most stable to use. XP has been working alright for me, I haven't had issues since I got rid of my virus. I like the graphic user interface included in XP. I currently have it on XP style, with Olive Green as my color style. Although, I personally liked 2000 better, even though I never used it for networking, it was very stable, it loaded way faster, and no longer demanded to work off of MS-DOS. I never had ME, or Millenium Edition, but I know that it was supposed to be the Home Edition of 2000. I found that 2000 worked great with my games, music, and all my programs were capable, as well as all the drivers, therefore being my home edition.

So, continueing down the line of History, before 2000 I had 98, naturally. I skipped NT completely in my history line up, and just got the disk in the mail from my brother (The 2000 disk I have is an upgrade, and you need an older version of windows, hence why I needed NT). I never was a big fan of 98. My computer was always crashing, I had problems when loading large games, and a lot of the newer stuff just didn't work (I had 98 until about 2003). Windows 95 I never owned until recently, but when I was five I always remembered playing Warcraft on my dad's computer, and it would just crash and show me the "blue screen of death". I would have to say that Microsoft has definitely improved for the most part, and I can't wait until Vista comes out.

So, yeah, that's my ranting on Windows. Yours?

[Michael24]

The first one we had was Windows 3.1, and to this day I still sometimes miss the simplicity of it. In 1995, we bought a second computer for the family (3.1 being on the one in our room for me and my brother), which had Windows 95. In 1999 we finally switched to Windows 98 and, in 2002, switched to XP. I really really hated XP for about a year or so, so I dug out our old computer with Windows 98 and continued to use it (also because XP wouldn't play some of our old games, like DARK FORCES) until I eventually warmed up to XP. I still get frustrated with it sometimes, and like I said miss the simplicity of 3.1, but for the most part I like it.

EDIT: Oh, and yeah I remember the "blue screen of death" all to well. Looking back, I actually don't remember it happening very often, but when it did happen, it would really drive us mad because it was usually in the middle of a game or working on a school project. I'll never forget this one time I got the "blue screen of death" just by clicking on the Word shortcut icon. Haha!!

[Lord Dalek]

Oldest I've used is 2.0 (yes there is Windows prior to 3.1). Wasn't very impressive.

[K-S-O]

Oldest Windows I've used was 3.1. It was alright but I don't think it had much going for it. Then again it's been a while so my memory might be fuzzy.

[solarflere]

I have used MSDos (pre Windows version). Then I went through Win95, WinNT 4.0, Win98SE, WinME, Win2000, WinXP, Windows Server 2003. Now I betatest Windows Vista.:cool: I am part of select few who have their beta for testing purposes.

[Michael24]

We also had MS-DOS on our very first computer, circa 1990. I kinda miss seeing that prompt after the computer boots up...

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6710/startingmsdosmy2.png

:D

[solarflere]

We also had MS-DOS on our very first computer, circa 1990. I kinda miss seeing that prompt after the computer boots up...

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6710/startingmsdosmy2.png

:DInsert a boot disk and type as follows:
A: [Enter]
A:\> Format C: [Enter]
Y [Enter]
:eek:

[kirschy]

I never had ME, or Millenium Edition, but I know that it was supposed to be the Home Edition of 2000.
That's actually not true. ME isn't really related to Win2k at all. It has more in common with Win98. Basically when MS made WinME they tried to update Win98 with newer features intended for home users, like system restore and improved multimedia support. However they kept the 9x core/DOS instead of switching to the NT core used in Win2k. For some reason that resulted in an extremely unstable/tempermental OS (probably because they'd hit the boundaries of what the 9x core could handle). The irony is that WinXP combined the features of both WinME and Win2k. XP used the NT core and filesystem (which is why its pretty stable) but incorporated a lot of the home user features that WinME introduced.

As far as MS operating systems I've used... On computers either my family or myself have owned, I've used DOS, Win3.1, Win95, Win98, WinME, Win2k, and WinXP. I've also gotten to play around with Win2003 Server on a friends computer (unless you're using it as a server, its basically WinXP). Most of the versions of Windows are good enough, though XP has some features that annoy me.

[solarflere]

~~~ (unless you're using it as a server, its basically WinXP). Most of the versions of Windows are good enough, though XP has some features that annoy me.Most of what you said is true except for thi part. Win 2003 Server is a much better and stable OS then XP, and it has a lot more features than XP.

[Dr. OneWay]

That's actually not true. ME isn't really related to Win2k at all. It has more in common with Win98. Basically when MS made WinME they tried to update Win98 with newer features intended for home users, like system restore and improved multimedia support. However they kept the 9x core/DOS instead of switching to the NT core used in Win2k. For some reason that resulted in an extremely unstable/tempermental OS (probably because they'd hit the boundaries of what the 9x core could handle). The irony is that WinXP combined the features of both WinME and Win2k. XP used the NT core and filesystem (which is why its pretty stable) but incorporated a lot of the home user features that WinME introduced.

As far as MS operating systems I've used... On computers either my family or myself have owned, I've used DOS, Win3.1, Win95, Win98, WinME, Win2k, and WinXP. I've also gotten to play around with Win2003 Server on a friends computer (unless you're using it as a server, its basically WinXP). Most of the versions of Windows are good enough, though XP has some features that annoy me.

Wow, I was way off. :p I knew ME was not on NT technology, but I did think it was supposed to be a downed version of 2000 for home users. Thanks for catching that!

For some reason I feel like pulling out an old computer and installing NT 4.0 or Win2k. I never had NT 4.0 on a computer, and 2000 was stable. Although I don't have any spare computers at the moment :\

[kirschy]

Most of what you said is true except for thi part. Win 2003 Server is a much better and stable OS then XP, and it has a lot more features than XP.
That's probably true. I guess I should have said I didn't see much difference between WinXP and Win2003. To be fair though I didn't use it extensively. It was on one of my friends computers and he let me play with it a little to see what it was like.

[solarflere]

For some reason I feel like pulling out an old computer and installing NT 4.0 or Win2k. I never had NT 4.0 on a computer, and 2000 was stable. Although I don't have any spare computers at the moment :\Win200 is WinNT 5.0 esentialy. It was the first name, then it was changes to Win 2000.

[Dr. OneWay]

Win200 is WinNT 5.0 esentialy. It was the first name, then it was changes to Win 2000.

I know that, NT 4.0 was the last Windows that was actually called NT, and 2000 continued the run with the next version.

[Dr. OneWay]

I just felt like having one, or both, of the operating system's running, to compare their stability and features. I've heard that NT 4.0 had a Win95 look though, am I not right?

[solarflere]

I just felt like having one, or both, of the operating system's running, to compare their stability and features. I've heard that NT 4.0 had a Win95 look though, am I not right? No, NT4.0 is Win98 look
NT 3.0 and earlier were 95 looking. I usualy do dual boot when I want to try new systems, but now in Vista beta, with its VM machine, I can instann an OS virtualy onto an existing OS, and not just wondows, I can put a MacOS into Vista as well.

[Conan-san]

My order was
3.1 on my mum's old work lappy
95 on the first family computer
98 on a hand me down compy from my mum's work
XP on this one. 3 years and going strong without any major issues (6 in total).

[Dr. OneWay]

No, NT4.0 is Win98 look
NT 3.0 and earlier were 95 looking. I usualy do dual boot when I want to try new systems, but now in Vista beta, with its VM machine, I can instann an OS virtualy onto an existing OS, and not just wondows, I can put a MacOS into Vista as well.

No, NT 4.0 was released in '96, giving it a '95 look. And it was also the first NT program to have a reasonable looking graphic interface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_4.0 Look under the image.

Look at NT. 3.51's graphic interface. It was released in '95, but doesn't look like '95 at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.51

[solarflere]

No, NT 4.0 was released in '96, giving it a '95 look. And it was also the first NT program to have a reasonable looking graphic interface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_4.0 Look under the image.

Look at NT. 3.51's graphic interface. It was released in '95, but doesn't look like '95 at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.51I stand correct it then.

But if you look at Windows 95 and Windows 98, their desktop environment looks the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98

[Dr. OneWay]

Yeah, they do look very much the same. It would be easy to mistake that. The change between NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 are so drastic, it makes it look like its 5 years apart, when its really only one.

[Taylor Karras]

I think the first system I've used is DOS.

[The Wolverine]

I used Windows 3.1 first, at the age of... 5, I think.

[Zach]

The oldest i've used is 95. I don't particularly like Windows, but I use it anyway just because it's easier than buying a Mac or installing Linux since I already have it. Security issues plauge Windows platforms, not to mention Microsoft's bundling of inferior products with their platforms.