5 ms·

Just as some off-the-top history, MS-DOS was clearly obsolete, but it hung around for like 10 years too long because people couldn't quit it. It was a DOSSY DOS

by flomo 2mo ago

Just as some off-the-top history, MS-DOS was clearly obsolete, but it hung around for like 10 years too long because people couldn't quit it. It was a DOSSY DOS world. "Protected Mode DOS" went through the IBM/MS gristmill and became OS/2, which was a compromised product in a lot of ways. Then Windows (still mostly a DOS program) got a little traction, and Microsoft had hired Dave Cutler to write a real OS. And David overthrew Goliath and the rest is history. On topic, nobody really wanted protected-mode DOS or CP/M etc.

p_l 2mo ago
Windows 3.0 becoming a hit was something unplanned by Microsoft originally - even the NT team was working with the assumption of using OS/2 API for applications. Win3.0 started out as skunkworks project initially hiding from management under smokescreen of just being one last release of "windows as application library" that some products (including 3rd party ones) were using
- ndiddy 1mo ago
  Here's a good anecdote about that: https://web.archive.org/web/20130806213426/http://blogs.msdn.com/b/larryosterman/archive/2005/02/02/365635.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20130806213426/http://blogs.msdn... > I remember wandering over to the Windows group over in Building 3 to talk to Aaron Reynolds about something to do with the MS-DOS redirector (I was working on DOS Lan Manager at the time). I ran into David, and he called me into his office "Hey, look at what I've got working!". > He showed me existing windows apps running in protected mode on the 286. UNMODIFIED Windows 1.0 applications running in protected mode. He then ran me around the rest of the group, and they showed me the other stuff they were working on. Ralph had written a new driver architecture called VxD. Aaron had done something astonishing (I'm not sure what). They had display drivers that could display 256 color bitmaps on the screen (the best OS/2 could do at the time was 16 colors). > My jaw was dropping lower and lower as I moved from office to office. "Oh my goodness, you can't let Steve see this, he's going to pitch a fit" (those aren't quite the words I used, but this is a family blog). You see, at this time, Microsoft's systems division was 100% focused on OS/2 1.1. All of the efforts of the systems division were totally invested in OS/2 development. We had invested literally tens of millions of dollars on OS/2, because we knew that it was the future for Microsoft. OS/2 at the time just ran a single DOS application at a time, and it had only just recently gotten a GUI (in 1989). It didn't have support for many printers (only about 5, all made by IBM, and (I believe) the HP Laserjet). > And here was this little skunkworks project in building three that was sitting on what was clearly the most explosive product Microsoft had ever produced. It was blindingly obvious, even at that early date - Windows 3.0 ran multiple DOS applications in virtual x86 machines. It ran Windows applications in protected mode, breaking the 640K memory barrier. It had a device driver model that allowed for development of true 32bit device drivers. It supported modern displays with color depths greater than had been available on PC operating systems. There was just no comparison between the two platforms - if they had to compete head-to-head, Windows 3.0 would win hands down.
adrian_b 2mo ago
MS-DOS became obsolete only at the launch of Windows 95. Until then, all the applications that could be found for Windows 3.0 or Windows 3.1 looked like worthless toys in comparison with the professional applications that were available for MS-DOS, despite the fact that the latter had to struggle with extended memory or expanded memory in order to use more than 640 kB of memory. From 1990 to 1995, I had Windows 3.0, then 3.1, then 3.11 and I launched them from time to time, for fun, but to accomplish real work I always had to go back to MS-DOS.
- 1313ed01 2mo ago
  At first Windows 95 was not great for games, so at least through 1996-97 many games were still released for MS-DOS and often only for MS-DOS, or only had Windows ports later. Looking back from now, I wish that era could have continued much longer, as running MS-DOS games in emulators is so much easier and more stable than to run old Windows games.
  - pjmlp 2mo ago
    Additionally, Microsoft had a first attempt to a gaming API for Windows, which mostly one those of us that were alive back then remember it, given how hard it is to search for it on the Internet. Really, how come anyone find something about WinG, if they don't know what they are actually searching for? https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/a-whirlwind-tour-of-wing https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/a-whirlwind-tour-o... https://betawiki.net/wiki/WinG https://betawiki.net/wiki/WinG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinG Also it took until DirectX 5, to have it be usable for games.
- flomo 1mo ago
  > MS-DOS became obsolete only at the launch of Windows 95. Not even. The genius of Windows 95 was you could still run most of your DOS crap. (Maybe not games, but business apps.) Novell shops for example had a huge pile of DOS drivers and all that just worked underneath 95. DOS only faded away afterwards.
  - 1mo ago

by flomo 2mo ago

p_l 2mo ago

Windows 3.0 becoming a hit was something unplanned by Microsoft originally - even the NT team was working with the assumption of using OS/2 API for applications. Win3.0 started out as skunkworks project initially hiding from management under smokescreen of just being one last release of "windows as application library" that some products (including 3rd party ones) were using

ndiddy 1mo ago
Here's a good anecdote about that: https://web.archive.org/web/20130806213426/http://blogs.msdn.com/b/larryosterman/archive/2005/02/02/365635.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20130806213426/http://blogs.msdn... > I remember wandering over to the Windows group over in Building 3 to talk to Aaron Reynolds about something to do with the MS-DOS redirector (I was working on DOS Lan Manager at the time). I ran into David, and he called me into his office "Hey, look at what I've got working!". > He showed me existing windows apps running in protected mode on the 286. UNMODIFIED Windows 1.0 applications running in protected mode. He then ran me around the rest of the group, and they showed me the other stuff they were working on. Ralph had written a new driver architecture called VxD. Aaron had done something astonishing (I'm not sure what). They had display drivers that could display 256 color bitmaps on the screen (the best OS/2 could do at the time was 16 colors). > My jaw was dropping lower and lower as I moved from office to office. "Oh my goodness, you can't let Steve see this, he's going to pitch a fit" (those aren't quite the words I used, but this is a family blog). You see, at this time, Microsoft's systems division was 100% focused on OS/2 1.1. All of the efforts of the systems division were totally invested in OS/2 development. We had invested literally tens of millions of dollars on OS/2, because we knew that it was the future for Microsoft. OS/2 at the time just ran a single DOS application at a time, and it had only just recently gotten a GUI (in 1989). It didn't have support for many printers (only about 5, all made by IBM, and (I believe) the HP Laserjet). > And here was this little skunkworks project in building three that was sitting on what was clearly the most explosive product Microsoft had ever produced. It was blindingly obvious, even at that early date - Windows 3.0 ran multiple DOS applications in virtual x86 machines. It ran Windows applications in protected mode, breaking the 640K memory barrier. It had a device driver model that allowed for development of true 32bit device drivers. It supported modern displays with color depths greater than had been available on PC operating systems. There was just no comparison between the two platforms - if they had to compete head-to-head, Windows 3.0 would win hands down.

adrian_b 2mo ago

MS-DOS became obsolete only at the launch of Windows 95. Until then, all the applications that could be found for Windows 3.0 or Windows 3.1 looked like worthless toys in comparison with the professional applications that were available for MS-DOS, despite the fact that the latter had to struggle with extended memory or expanded memory in order to use more than 640 kB of memory. From 1990 to 1995, I had Windows 3.0, then 3.1, then 3.11 and I launched them from time to time, for fun, but to accomplish real work I always had to go back to MS-DOS.

1313ed01 2mo ago
At first Windows 95 was not great for games, so at least through 1996-97 many games were still released for MS-DOS and often only for MS-DOS, or only had Windows ports later. Looking back from now, I wish that era could have continued much longer, as running MS-DOS games in emulators is so much easier and more stable than to run old Windows games.
- pjmlp 2mo ago
  Additionally, Microsoft had a first attempt to a gaming API for Windows, which mostly one those of us that were alive back then remember it, given how hard it is to search for it on the Internet. Really, how come anyone find something about WinG, if they don't know what they are actually searching for? https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/a-whirlwind-tour-of-wing https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/a-whirlwind-tour-o... https://betawiki.net/wiki/WinG https://betawiki.net/wiki/WinG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinG Also it took until DirectX 5, to have it be usable for games.
flomo 1mo ago
> MS-DOS became obsolete only at the launch of Windows 95. Not even. The genius of Windows 95 was you could still run most of your DOS crap. (Maybe not games, but business apps.) Novell shops for example had a huge pile of DOS drivers and all that just worked underneath 95. DOS only faded away afterwards.
- 1mo ago