Fantastic! That's an OS/2 prompt, which adds more weight to my suspicions that the NT cmd.exe is nothing more than a slight evolution of the OS/2 cmd.exe. The screenshot I posted yesterday of the OS/2 cmd.exe "file not found" error message being largely the same as the NT cmd.exe was another chunk of evidence.

NT still runs .cmd files.. .and it goes back to NT OS/2 being OS/2 version 3.0 and following in OS/2's footsteps.....

I wonder how it honors a startup.cmd .....!
--edit, never mind December 1991 doesn't do anything with it, I'd bet October isn't any different...

But speaking of OS/2 heritage, check this out...

Excellent stuff - that early build of NT really is showing off its OS/2 credentials! Almost as if it's just OS/2 with a Windows subsystem and UI tacked on top... Of course, it's not really surprising given that NT was to be OS/2 3.0, but I wasn't expecting it to be quite as brazen early on. Must have been quite frustrating for Microsoft at that period, knowing they'd got LAN Manager running under Windows but still having to sell OS/2 to the public in order to run it as NT was nowhere near ready.

Talking of which, here's the OS/2 1.1 cmd.exe and the NT3.1 build 404 cmd.exe open in Notepad. The error messages are very much the same and of note is that build 404 still has the OS/2 "not found" message - they changed it shortly afterwards to the current similar-but-not-quite-the-same message.

great, it feels like Windows 3.0, can we have it?

More old NT stuff - if you dig around NT 328 you'll see the NTVDM (in \i386) isn't quite what you'd expect! It is, in fact, a copy of Insignia's SoftPC (as used on MIPS). Dig inside NTDVM.EXE and you find:

"SoftPC-AT Version 3.0a demo only

(C)Copyright Insignia Solutions Inc. 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 "

as well as:

"NtVdm : Using Yoda on an x86 may be hazardous to your systems' health"

And no, before anyone asks - it doesn't seem to work properly under x64. A pity, as it'd be nice to have an NTVDM available again...

EDIT: And in ntvdm.exe in Win7 SP1, you guessed it...

"SoftPC-AT Version 3

(C)Copyright Insignia Solutions Inc. 1987-1992"

I honestly thought Microsoft rewrote the NTVDM from scratch, but they didn't. It's still essentially a version of SoftPC from 19 years ago!

linuxlove, check all demos in NT October 1991 (possible WinBEZ). You search string:

Would you want to say that there "Windows NT 1.0"?

They might haven't updated the version and build number in these demos. Many of executables you may found that they've the version 1.00.000

It's possible fake. Because someone would have created/got programs that are similiar to "Interface Manager" (actually) and modified the Windows to say that it's 1.1x

If it's real, could you provide us with more pictures and more visible?

yeah, low-res images are one heck of a proof...

that screenshot of NT 3.1 Build 175 is real, cause it was on that Microsoft video from July 1991

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=17218&start=0

has more details of that.

Things such as the clock and notepad had Windows 3.0 icons too, I see - I'm guessing that build 175 is the earliest NT build to have been pictured (at least publically!)

Umm, do you think so?

I haven't heard of it, but I know that there NT from January 1991. But was it saying NT 1.xx rather than NT 3.1?
Then if it's true, where is NT 2.xx ?

It's in the same place as Word for Windows 5.

NT was released as version 3.1 as, according to PC Plus they wanted to avoid the "version 1.0" syndrome (where companies, the people NT was aimed at, would assume it was full of bugs as it was brand new). Consumer Windows was at version 3.1, which is why NT was given the same version.

That decision would have been made at some stage after build 175 and before build 328.

Ahh I see. Sorry for silly questions people

NT 32-bit OS 3.0 exist?

Nobody knows outside of Microsoft, but I'd be 99.99% certain it doesn't.

Someone, somewhere made the decision that the product should be released as NT 3.1 and I'd bet anything the build went from 1.xxx to 3.1.xxx+1 overnight.

It'd be interesting to know what the very first builds of NT called themselves - whether they called themselves NT OS/2 for example - or whether that was just a codename which never actually made it into a compiled build.

where have NT October 1991 Pre-Release?

Yep, NT 3.1 was released in 1993. Why this says NT Version 3.2, I don't know. The same can be found in NT 239.


That's only the desktop build tag and it isn't in any of the demos.


That image German posted is real. You can see the video I took that picture of here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuMeqcuTjSY (4 parts)


In a secret place far, far away.

As for the October 1991 release of Windows NT 3.2, well, as far as I know, it was won by an eBay user known as al_kossow, who purchased the CD-ROM from the same source (seller) as the person who was selling such CD-ROMs as those containing Build 239.1 (the December 1991 release which we have) and Build 319.1 (the October 1992 release, also, it's not Build 328.1, since that build was from November 4th, 1992, but Build 319.1, though it reports itself as Build 340).

Regarding NT OS/2, it was originally planned for the "NT" operating system to be yet another release of OS/2, this time, with a different low level kernel and set of drivers, which explains the name "NT OS/2", yet due to the higher popularity of Windows, the OS/2 subsystem was swapped in favor of the Windows subsystem, which resulted in the eventual breakup between IBM and Microsoft. Infact, louisw3 even had a build of Windows NT once that still had some references to "NT OS/2", which he unfortunately lost in a move, and also confirmed that it was most likely from August 1991.

As for the version number in some of the earlier builds of Windows NT being, well, apparently, the version number shifted at least once (from Windows NT 3.2 to Windows NT 3.1, possibly to match with Windows 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups 3.1), not to mention that as far as I know, it was also known as Windows NT 3.0 once, though it could have also been a mistyping, but I'm almost certain that it wasn't.

As it happens, there's a reference to NT OS/2 in that 1991 build on the FTP server...



Nothing that would be shown on screen, however.

The reference is still there in NTOSKRNL.EXE version 3.10.319, although I've not checked newer builds to see when it was finally removed.


That version 3.2 thing is indeed quite odd. The bit from PC Plus magazine (in mid-1992) about starting numbering at 3.1 to match regular Windows seems plausible to me, which is why I mentioned it earlier.

hah, i have crazy idea, maybe MS firstly called it Windows NT 3.2 because it is consonant with Windows NT 32? Just then they decided to change it to 3.1.

al_kossow that winner is who give us the copy of "Office 4.2 for Windows NT" whom I contact.

I have posted to him in that time, but he didn't reply to me.

It is from that MS video promoting the future of windows.... And how awesome this NT thing will be.

It sure is crazy enough to be plausible...