Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Discuss MS-DOS, Windows 1, 2 and 3.
WindowsCollector2000
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:02 am
Location: C:\WINDOWS\System32

Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by WindowsCollector2000 »

Hey BetaArchive!

Was just digging around Microsoft's Windows History page, and found this image

Image

Now the description of the image said "The Windows 2.0 Desktop", but is not what I have seen before!

Let me know whether this is a possible beta of Windows 2.0!


WindowsCollector2000
The Windows :beta: Collector
i do things.
Pre-Whistler 2428 builds are underrated tbh

buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by buricco »

Isn't that exactly Windows 1.0?

WindowsCollector2000
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:02 am
Location: C:\WINDOWS\System32

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by WindowsCollector2000 »

Probably not.

Microsoft did make that History page...
i do things.
Pre-Whistler 2428 builds are underrated tbh

JimOlive
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:07 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, Existence

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by JimOlive »

WindowsCollector2000 wrote:Probably not.

Microsoft did make that History page...
Maybe it was a typo.

Goldfish64
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:20 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by Goldfish64 »

That is definitely Windows 1.0x, as Windows 2.x has arrows for the minimize/maximize buttons. For some reason, it was used instead of a Windows 2.x screenshot.

Here's the link: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/wind ... ry#T1=era2
Goldfish64

Overdoze
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1689
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by Overdoze »

Indeed this screenshot shows Windows 1.0, the other image on the Windows 2.0 page (box art) correctly shows Windows 2.0. Probably mistake on the part of whoever wrote the content, and it's not like they care much about it either.
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks

wpblogheader
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:57 pm

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by wpblogheader »

Goldfish64 wrote:That is definitely Windows 1.0x, as Windows 2.x has arrows for the minimize/maximize buttons. For some reason, it was used instead of a Windows 2.x screenshot.

Here's the link: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/wind ... ry#T1=era2
Or maybe this is an undiscovered Windows 2 beta! I mean, you never know...

louisw3
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: SE Asia

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by louisw3 »

Don't forget that super early debug version of Windows 3.0 that runs in protected mode (standard mode) had everything else with a 2.11 appearance.

So an early beta of 2, could look a lot like 1.0

Or someone just made a mistake.

Much like how plenty of people lump NT 3.1/3.5/3.51 as the same thing, simply because to the end user they look the same.
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." – Henry Spencer

WindowsCollector2000
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:02 am
Location: C:\WINDOWS\System32

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by WindowsCollector2000 »

Yes. Windows 3.0's early moments were 2.0 only! So why not Windows 2.0 be very similar to 1.0!
i do things.
Pre-Whistler 2428 builds are underrated tbh

buricco
User avatar
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:44 am

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by buricco »

Occam's razor says it's most likely just plain ol' 1.x.

Battler
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Slovenia, Central Europe.
Contact:

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by Battler »

WindowsCollector2000 wrote:Yes. Windows 3.0's early moments were 2.0 only! So why not Windows 2.0 be very similar to 1.0!
Absolutely not. Only the ISV build had the Windows 2.0 UI because ISV builds do not include UI changes. The Anti-Trust documents also talk about a Chicago ISV build from early 1993 with the new kernel but Windows 3.1 UI. Yet we have a Microsoft video showing an almost 58s-like UI already in Chicago in December 1992, proving that the UI there but ISV builds omit UI changes so the ISV builds didn't have the new UI.
Join [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/softhistory/]#softhistory @ RoL IRC[/url], a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/aniboshi/]#doki-doki @ RoL IRC[/url], Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.

louisw3
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: SE Asia

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by louisw3 »

I thought the consumer 32bit OS started development in 93 where it would have looked a lot more like 3.1, just as Win32s was from what? 92?

My point being that depending on the cycle, they easily could have used a 'stable' top stack while changing stuff underneath.
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." – Henry Spencer

Overdoze
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1689
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by Overdoze »

There's literally nothing in that image that suggests it's Windows 2.0. Thus claiming it is Windows 2.0 because someone put the image onto Windows 2.0 page is a rather lousy thing to do.

As said, it's far more likely for this to be a simple mistake rather than an actual Windows 2.0 beta.
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks

Battler
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Slovenia, Central Europe.
Contact:

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by Battler »

- louisw3: Chicago started developing in late 1992, and we have a video showing builds from December 1992 and January 1993, which don't look that different from 58s. Add to that that the Chicago UI was ported from Cairo, so the UI itself was probably even older.
Join [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/softhistory/]#softhistory @ RoL IRC[/url], a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: [url=irc://irc.ringoflightning.net/aniboshi/]#doki-doki @ RoL IRC[/url], Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
The 86Box help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.

DiskingRound
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1514
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Location: Inside the space between . and I

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by DiskingRound »

Sorry about the giant bump, but here you go. One screenshot of a real Windows 2.0 beta from March(?) 1987:
Image

Source: InfoWorld, April 6th, 1987. (https://books.google.com.br/books?id=lj0EAAAAMBAJ)
The magazine predates any known Windows 2.x. Even if there was a Windows 2.0 RTM version from that time frame, the way the article was worded (especially the language used: "Windows 2.0 will... blah..blah..blah.") makes me 100% positive it's a beta. I've actually already posted this in another topic I created, but posting it again will make it easy to find.

SoftPCMuseum
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:15 am
Contact:

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by SoftPCMuseum »

The same pre-release version of Microsoft Windows 2.0 is also described in this issue of the Microsoft Systems Journal (May 1987) available here: http://www.pcjs.org/pubs/pc/magazines/msj/MSJ-1987-05/
Image
Latest release of Virtual Computer emulator available here:
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewt ... 72&t=39197

DiskingRound
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1514
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Location: Inside the space between . and I

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by DiskingRound »

SoftPCMuseum wrote:The same pre-release version of Microsoft Windows 2.0 is also described in this issue of the Microsoft Systems Journal (May 1987) available here: http://www.pcjs.org/pubs/pc/magazines/msj/MSJ-1987-05/
Dang, those screens are better than mine. thx.
There are at least two other issues of InfoWorld that show Windows 2.0 betas, but generally about other applications and stuff. Since no build number is disclosed in that article, we will never know how they were numbered, although a hint could be given by a "Windows 1.03.04" beta, of which a screenshot is available.

Overdoze
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1689
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by Overdoze »

DiskingRound wrote:There are at least two other issues of InfoWorld that show Windows 2.0 betas, but generally about other applications and stuff. Since no build number is disclosed in that article, we will never know how they were numbered, although a hint could be given by a "Windows 1.03.04" beta, of which a screenshot is available.
Not sure what that fake screenshot has to do with this topic.

But nice find I must say. Windows 2.0 is actually one of the last (if not THE last) versions that we don't have a pre-release build of, hopefully some floppies will pop-up eventually. :)
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks

OltScript131
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 255
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:46 am
Contact:

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by OltScript131 »

Hee, and we also see on certain pages, version 2.00, apparently : Here and here ! :beta: :D

DiskingRound
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1514
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Location: Inside the space between . and I

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by DiskingRound »

Thanks SoftPCMuseum from the screenshots! Hero.

I do wonder if 2.0 betas were sceneleaked, but all the stuff from that era I know of refers to games only

- Overdoze: No, we also don't have 2.1X betas. Any proof that's fake? To me it looks as real as can be.

Overdoze
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1689
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by Overdoze »

DiskingRound wrote:I do wonder if 2.0 betas were sceneleaked, but all the stuff from that era I know of refers to games only
Highly unlikely. We're more likely to get this from actual physical media.
DiskingRound wrote:- Overdoze: No, we also don't have 2.1X betas. Any proof that's fake? To me it looks as real as can be.
I meant all 2.x releases, but yeah, we don't have any betas of that.

If you tinker with Windows 1.x bootscreen you'll get the same garbage displayed at the bottom, which are just strings and code that sits immediately after the bootscreen. Also, keep in mind that nothing can be proclaimed real unless it can actually be verified by the community. You can't really prove anything with a single screenshot.
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks

xelloss
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:26 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by xelloss »

Overdoze wrote:Also, keep in mind that nothing can be proclaimed real unless it can actually be verified by the community. You can't really prove anything with a single screenshot.
Clearly the leak of a new beta, or even a screenshot, is valuable when it details previously unknown information about the development process.
These screenshots don't reveal anything new, so they are nice to see, but not really valuable.

But "not real"? Even though their legitimacy cannot be proved beyond doubt, these screenshots were published by magazines, including a Microsoft magazine, before the official release of Windows 2.0: so the chances that they may be fake are razor-thin.

Overdoze
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1689
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by Overdoze »

I was talking to DiskingRound regarding the Windows 1.03.04 screenshot he mentioned... I've no doubt these 2.0 screenshots are legit.
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks

OltScript131
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 255
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:46 am
Contact:

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by OltScript131 »

Goldfish64 wrote:That is definitely Windows 1.0x, as Windows 2.x has arrows for the minimize/maximize buttons. For some reason, it was used instead of a Windows 2.x screenshot.

Here's the link: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/wind ... ry#T1=era2
The link is dead, apparently... :beta: :(

WindowsCollector2000
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:02 am
Location: C:\WINDOWS\System32

Re: Possible Windows 2.0 Beta

Post by WindowsCollector2000 »

Offtopic Comment
Wonder why this ancient post of mine got revived...
DiskingRound wrote:Sorry about the giant bump
That's alright, just didn't know a topic that was technically answered would be bumped after a year of it's absence.
Overdoze wrote:Windows 2.0 is actually one of the last (if not THE last) versions that we don't have a pre-release build of
Unless you count Odyssey (which may not have been compiled, but heck, only employees of that time know!), and Blackcomb (if compiled), then yes, 2.0 is the only we have without any pre-release versions of.
Jajan131 wrote:Hee, and we also see on certain pages, version 2.00, apparently : Here and here !
That looks like Windows 1.0, with Windows 2.0 buttons.
Offtopic Comment
Welcome to the Windows 2.0 Beta Topic, everyone. :?
DiskingRound wrote:I do wonder if 2.0 betas were sceneleaked, but all the stuff from that era I know of refers to games only
Depends on how Windows 1.0 DR5-Beta got here in the first place. I wasn't here to see the leakage of Windows 1.0 Betas, probably a few years before I joined. If 1.0 Pre-releases were sceneleaked, then 2.0 could've been sceneleaked.
Jajan131 wrote:The link is dead, apparently...
Yes, it takes me to a Windows 7 page. Lucky I downloaded that image before that changed.
i do things.
Pre-Whistler 2428 builds are underrated tbh

Post Reply