Is Windows 2.0 is success or flop?

[johnlemon647]

There was another topic about Windows 1.0 this is about Windows 2.0. Windows 2.00 is first windows to have overlapping windows. Windows 2.00 is first Windows move icons freely a round screen. Window 2.00 is first Windows sold over millions copies. Windows 2.00 is first Windows v86 mode via Windows 386 2.01 and Windows 386 2.03. My opinion is Windows 2.0 is success not a flop.

[louisw3]

I think the real thing of measure is a success in terms of what?

2.x was a significant improvement from 1.x, I'm sure it sold more in terms of retail/OEM bundle, and application bundles (the Windows 2.x runtime), but technically even though Windows/386 was incredibly impressive the fundamentals of remaining in realmode was still a major barrier to Windows 2.

The larger problem was the proliferation of 80286 based machines. The whole derailment of OS/2 from being available for the 386 with 386 based features basically killed OS/2 before it even got a start. Windows wasn't subject to the same IBM based insanity and thusly Microsoft were free to charge significantly less for the SDK's and to peruse 386 specific features.

2.0/2.1/2.11 basically had laid the foundation that Windows was strong enough for apps like Excel, Word, Aldus Pagemaker, Corel Draw and many more.

It was because of the success of Windows 2, and IBM's refusal to let Microsoft make Windows the UI for OS/2 that had given Microsoft enough confidence that those hard fought for Windows applications by Microsoft and other 3rd parties were worth fighting for, and what started the Windows 3.0 revolution which lead to NT OS/2 becoming Windows NT, and the disbandment by Microsoft of OS/2 after 1.21. And this is why OS/2 was later plagued as half finished for the 2.00 launch, along with still having a fundamentally 16bit kernel with 16bit device drivers. IBM was out of their league to do anything productive with OS/2, while Microsoft had only marketplace to grow and take over with Windows 3.0 on the low end, and Windows NT on the Midrange.

Running Windows 2 in protected mode started almost immediately after the launch party of Windows 2, but by making Windows able to scale to the memory power of the 80286 & 80386 processors without a new operating system, Windows would be unstoppable.

As a side note, prior to the release of DOS4G/W, DOS extenders were VERY expensive, and building applications for Windows was actually much cheaper.

[johnlemon647]

Windows 2.00 did laid foundation more than Windows 3.0. Windows 3.0 is repaint version Windows 2.00 with more apps and protected mode.
Windows 2.00 start from ground up than Windows 3.00. Windows 3.00 was massive success what killed OS/2 in end. Actuality Windows 2.00 what killed OS/2 from start. Windows 2.01/386 have V86 mode inside command prompt. While OS/2 1.00 slush Intel 286 prison box. What actuality kill OS/2 sells from start. OS/2 1.00 did not have a GUI but OS/2 1.1 did have GUI. Windows 2.00 GUI called Presentation Manager because IBM want Windows 2.0 users move to OS/2 that never happen. From OS/2 1.10. Because IBM want Microsoft to kill Windows and Microsoft said no. The last Windows post be Windows 2.0 that never happen Microsoft did continue Windows after Windows 2.00.

[AlphaBeta]

Windows 2.00 did laid foundation more than Windows 3.0. Windows 3.0 is repaint version Windows 2.00 with more apps and protected mode.

That's not right. Even though Windows 2.x did introduce features that were key in the success of Windows 3.0 such as the virtual machine manager, it's still the ability to run applications in protected mode and therefore the possibility to access more than 640 KB of memory that made it the success that it was.

[louisw3]

Windows 2.00 did laid foundation more than Windows 3.0. Windows 3.0 is repaint version Windows 2.00 with more apps and protected mode.

That's not right. Even though Windows 2.x did introduce features that were key in the success of Windows 3.0 such as the virtual machine manager, it's still the ability to run applications in protected mode and therefore the possibility to access more than 640 KB of memory that made it the success that it was.

Exactly. Until Windows 3.0 the average person with a 286 or 386 basically had no way to take advantage of it for productivity software.

Considering Geos dates back to 1986, it's amazing to have gone from 8bit productivity to 16bit protected mode on 4 short years.

And thanks to the platform hell of no standards for high speed graphics a sound it was inevitable that Windows would eventually become the platform of choice for games

Windows 2 got Microsoft the apps it so wanted, and 3.0 gave them the benefits of OS/2 without having users touch their operating systems. Just as 3.0 gave way to 3.1 which served as the #1 workhorse and became the bridge to desktop 32bit OS's with Win32s for those who didn't have a machine strong enough for Windows NT.

[Tootles]

Windows 2.00 did laid foundation more than Windows 3.0. Windows 3.0 is repaint version Windows 2.00 with more apps and protected mode.
Windows 2.00 start from ground up than Windows 3.00. Windows 3.00 was massive success what killed OS/2 in end. Actuality Windows 2.00 what killed OS/2 from start. Windows 2.01/386 have V86 mode inside command prompt. While OS/2 1.00 slush Intel 286 prison box. What actuality kill OS/2 sells from start. OS/2 1.00 did not have a GUI but OS/2 1.1 did have GUI. Windows 2.00 GUI called Presentation Manager because IBM want Windows 2.0 users move to OS/2 that never happen. From OS/2 1.10. Because IBM want Microsoft to kill Windows and Microsoft said no. The last Windows post be Windows 2.0 that never happen Microsoft did continue Windows after Windows 2.00.

This is really difficult to understand.

At the end of the day, Windows 2 was a success - if it hadn't been, there would have been no point in carrying on to 3.

Also OS/2's Presentation Manager for Windows 2 would rock as much as a port of Program Manager.

[os2fan2]

Windows 2.x was not really in the hunt. It was more a case of a runtime library, for the likes of Aldus Pagemaker and the like, rather than a standalone product. Windows 3.x on the machines of the day was not really suited for multitasking. An 8 MB ram box was a huge thing in 1992.

Certainly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the norm was to load an application and do something, and then unload it. You really did not do a lot of multi-tasking then. Windows could handle more than DOS because of paging. OS/2 was typically more robust than Windows or DOS, and this was really the time of TeamOS2.

Presentation Manager is actually a double-layer affair: PROTSHELL and RUNWORKPLACE in OS/2 Parlence. In Windows 3.x, protshell is essentially the gdi/user/kernel thing, which is loaded by default. You can set runworkplace in windows by using the system.ini[boot]shell= setting. In a runtime windows, this points to the app to load, eg shell=pagemake.exe or whatever. The default is shell=progman.exe, but you can load a wide assortment of proggies, like ndw.exe (norton desktop for windows), or parxim.exe, or sol.exe.

IBM was more backwards-looking, so they made their software run on extant boxes. This is why HPFS is written for the 286. Microsoft did a HPFS386, mostly used in the server. But at this time, a machine was still pretty expensive: the price is about half of what a motor car was going for, say. So people did not usually want to toss the old box out.

A big power-box at the time might have a 120 MB hard disk, and 8 MB ram. Usually 40 MB hard drive and 2 or 4 MB ram is more the fare. Installing DOS and Windows fully, could take up something like 20 MB or more of your disk. So you sometimes were very particular about what to install. The windows 3.1 resource kit tells you how to thin out the non-required bits. This is the age of bloat-ware.

Large modern machines, with 512+ MB ram, and hard-drives measured in gigs, were not really common until 1996. By this time, OS/2 was into Warp 4.0 and Windows was 9x.

[xelloss]

Large modern machines, with 512+ MB ram, and hard-drives measured in gigs, were not really common until 1996. By this time, OS/2 was into Warp 4.0 and Windows was 9x.

I bought in 1996 a PC with 32MB of ram, and that was on the high-end of the spectrum. Similar story in 1999, when I changed PC and got 256 MB. I'd say that 512 MB was fair game by the turn of the century.
1GB+ hard drives were not entirely uncommon starting in 1995.

[os2fan2]

I bought twocomputers in 1992. One was a 4 MB ram + 80 MB hard drive. The other had 8 MB ram + 120 MB hard drive.

The computers started to serge in size, both ram and in 1996 or so.

A 1 GB hard drove was still reasonably expensive in 1995. I was still using Penning (20 MB ram and a 600 + 1000 MB hard disk) well into 2000.

[louisw3]

Large modern machines, with 512+ MB ram, and hard-drives measured in gigs, were not really common until 1996. By this time, OS/2 was into Warp 4.0 and Windows was 9x.

I bought in 1996 a PC with 32MB of ram, and that was on the high-end of the spectrum. Similar story in 1999, when I changed PC and got 256 MB. I'd say that 512 MB was fair game by the turn of the century.
1GB+ hard drives were not entirely uncommon starting in 1995.

High end PC's would be stuff like Compaq Servers. I was using quad processor machines with 1GB+ of ram and 1TB+ of disk space. These were *NOT* machines you'd go down to your mom & pop or local retailer to purchase, and they required several 42U racks to fit into. But they were PC's that'd happily boot MS-DOS to update the BIOS, and run Windows NT 3.51 just fine.

but the time 98 rolled around we were using 8 processor machines with 4+GB of ram using NT 4.0 Enterprise.

[xelloss]

High end PC's would be stuff like Compaq Servers.

Well, ok, that depends on the definition of PC, because such systems were all but "personal", but I get your point
I think it is about right to say that 32MB ram in 1996 were like 32GB today.

[louisw3]

I guess it's like the 1-8GB machines to the ones today that are 1TB and higher...

I have one with 240GB, although at work we have plenty of the 1TB.. probably higher too

[johnlemon647]

Also OS/2's Presentation Manager for Windows 2 would rock as much as a port of Program Manager.

Supposedly, Microsoft had a beta program manager and file manager for Windows 2 downloadable from their BBS.

[AlphaBeta]

Also OS/2's Presentation Manager for Windows 2 would rock as much as a port of Program Manager.

Supposedly, Microsoft had a beta program manager and file manager for Windows 2 downloadable from their BBS.

Is there any source for this claim? A "program and file manager" could just as well mean MS-DOS Shell, which of course wasn't for Windows 2.0 but could seem so to a person without such knowledge.

[johnlemon647]

Also OS/2's Presentation Manager for Windows 2 would rock as much as a port of Program Manager.

Supposedly, Microsoft had a beta program manager and file manager for Windows 2 downloadable from their BBS.

Is there any source for this claim? A "program and file manager" could just as well mean MS-DOS Shell, which of course wasn't for Windows 2.0 but could seem so to a person without such knowledge.

It Rumor, i hear it do not mean their wasn't Program Manager and File Manager for Windows 2.00. There is no evident for Windows 2.0 File Manager and Program Manager. MS-DOS 5.00.224 Beta DOSSHELL have Program Manager and File Manager build in. We did not know MS-DOS did have Program Manager and File Manager in til MS-DOS 5.00.224 Beta leak. The Beta Program Manager and File Manager could be for Windows 3.00 not Windows 2.00 because Windows 3.00 have File Manager and Program Manager. And it just a rumor i hear on website.

[DailyGerald]

An operating system is only as successful as the software that runs on it. I can think of over 10 softwares that I had for Windows 3.0 that would be killer app (Lotus Notes or Office). I can't think of anything that was a must have for Windows 2.0... What was its killer app?

[louisw3]

An operating system is only as successful as the software that runs on it. I can think of over 10 softwares that I had for Windows 3.0 that would be killer app (Lotus Notes or Office). I can't think of anything that was a must have for Windows 2.0... What was its killer app?

Word, and Excel were incredibly popular. And very much so 'killer' applications as it pushed people out of MS-DOS.

You can find many more here:

http://toastytech.com/guis/win1x2x.html

[johnlemon647]

There was more Windows 2.00 Applications than Windows 1.01 Applications at time. Word, and Excel of Windows for 2.00 were incredibly popular at time. Meantime OS/2 1.00 and 1.10 lack serious Application because $3,000 OS/2 1.00 SDK Kit made some people start write Windows Application at time but more people return DOS in till became more Windows Popular. Windows 2.00 did good as run time software Market.




There is many more Application for Windows 2.00 in Page 2 of Ad.


Do you Want pay $3,000 to write OS/2 Applications or Write Windows 2.00 Applications for Cheap price.

[Apex]

The problem with Windows/286 is that Microsoft sold Windows short. If you take a look at the box, you'll see that they put an emphasis on better DOS integration and consistency in look and feel with OS/2. But DOS integration was always going to be flaky on the 286, and the emphasis on OS/2 gave the impression that Windows was a dead-end. (We all know how that story ended.)

On the other hand, for Windows/286 to really shine as a multitasking OS for the masses and not just a runtime for Excel, it needs large-frame EMS hardware and plenty of memory. Which was very expensive at the time. A full-featured board like the AST RampagePlus 286 was $1445 with 2MB towards the end of 1989, two years into the reign of Windows/286. For that much (plus what you already spent on your 286), a 386 starts sounding like a far more attractive investment. Especially considering that Windows 3.0 was right around the corner at that point.

In retrospect, I think Windows/286 is a pretty interesting OS, even if it never really got a chance to reach its full potential on most user's machines.

[EvanKTC]

No because windows 3.0 was the first to be a success

[os2fan2]

The computers in the early 1990s came with menu-shell programs, where one might load a variety of different programs.

It's hard to say that Word/Excel were market leaders back then. There were 29 major word processors, of which WordPerfect was the market leader, and Lotus123 was the market leader in spreadsheets. Early versions of Word/Excel had keystroke access to their help files, following the WP/123 set.

Microsoft made a fair dint in the market by selling white-box software to OEMs and generally. Putting your program in the first boot is a good way of hooking customers. In any case, the Word/Excel set were pretty awful. The data files were wildly fragile, and wysiwyg editing on slow machines could be a horrid pain.

Windows 2 had no real pull in the market place. It wasn't the sort of thing that occupied the glossies. QuarterDesk were in the market with their Desqview, which is based on X-Windows. IBM had Topview. HP had something there too. But desktop shells of this nature were not the sort of thing you run as a home situation.

In essence, it competed with scarse resources in a way that the dos menus did not. At work, we used a thing called the 'ferntree menu' (ferntree was a local computer-support company). You add various applications to the menu, and you could start a dozen or so proggies (including nested menus).

Progman and Winfile are bug-compatible copies of PMExec and PMFile from OS/2 1.x. The main difference between progman and pmexec is that progman used an MDI icon-field interface, while PMexec used a nested windows in list-windows.

3.0 was hobbled by artificial limits (such as 10 groups etc), more due to contractual obligations on released IP, but the public hung out to 3.1, when they had to release more IP to make it look like a worthwile upgrade. The big fear with Win95 (as Win 4.0), is that by this time the public were more wary of dot-zero releases, and hung out to the dot-one ones. Windows 95 was a significant upgrade since most of the released IP restrictions had gone. But DOS 7.1 / Win 4.1 were worth the wait.

[OltScript131]

No because windows 3.0 was the first to be a success

It is rather Windows 3.1 which was a real success !

[os2fan2]

Windows 3.0 is the first i saw in the office, and was the first that came bundled with machines. My first computer had msdos 5 and windows 3.00. But the upgrade came out the same day as the machine, so i upgraded to 3.1.

Windows 3.1 was known in its time as bloatware. Its base install took up a quarter of the fixed disk, (20 out of 80 mb), to the extent that the Win31 resource kit tells you how to modify setup.inf, and what features of windows could be removed.

It acquired the monicker 'Windoze', because its install specs were way too low for what it needed to do. People were reccomending it for 2 mb ram, which means it's paging like crazy. Even with eight megs of ram, it was pretty average. A good deal of the bloat is due to the 'multimedia extensions' which were bundled as part of the OS. A 386 or 486 is not the sort of environment one would do lots of multimedia stuff, so i imagine a lot of stuff like soundrec, mplayer, etc were simply not used on low-end machines.

The fact that microsoft hacked 3.0 to remove stuff so IBM could not get it, and by the time 3.1 came out, IBM still got it. There is an appreciably bigger difference between 3.10 and 3.11. Wfw 3.10 went by the byline 'Windoze for Warehouses', on the notion that its biggest 'user' would be warehouse shelves holding non-moving product. The kernel hacks made between 3.10 and 3.11 made the product appreciably faster, but by this time the IBM sharing had ceased.

Windows 3.11 was the last in the line: basically windows 3.10 with an updated driver set, and a replaced kernel set (which is free to download, i think it's WW0981). It was released because microsoft was trying to steal another after-market for network software. At the time, microsoft were making a large number of artificial ties (such as smartdrv 4.2, which supposedly requires dos 6, but can be hacked to use dos 3.3, and vshare.vxd, which supposedly requires Wfw 3.11, but a version for any windows was released under WW1000).

[Overdoze]

Windows 3.0 is the first i saw in the office, and was the first that came bundled with machines.

If you mean like an OEM release, then no, that's not correct.

[Battler]

3.0 was hobbled by artificial limits (such as 10 groups etc), more due to contractual obligations on released IP, but the public hung out to 3.1, when they had to release more IP to make it look like a worthwile upgrade.

I think those limit had more to do with the fact that Windows 3.0 also ran in real mode, and therefore everything had to be compatible with that mode. Windows 3.1 dropped that mode and as such, limits could be increased.