Anybody got a copy of Windows 3.0 (yes 3.0)

[echrada]

There comes a time in everybody's life when they have to .......

 

[Night Hawk]

I dont think XP has it. Time to let go of it ?

Alt-Prntscrn apparently! That works in 7 as well.

 

[Everlong]

Windows NT -- even to get the simplest app to work on this took armies of IT support staff -- why on earth corporations loved this server when much better Linux systems were around I will never know.



Cheers
jimbo

Well Windows NT was labelled the most safe from viruses and unhackable OS...




...when it wasn't connected to the Internet :sarc:

 

[johngalt]

I am pretty sure I had (at one time) Windows 1,2 and 3, along with 3.1 and 3.11 (upgrade) on floppy *and* Windows 95 upgrade via floppy as well....

Let me look around and see if I can still find the floppies *and* the disc I burned the Windows 1-3 on.

 

[Night Hawk]

3.1 was bought in a retail box seeing six 3 1/2" floppies while the initial release was on the 5 1/4" 1.2mb type. That was right when 3 1/2" was becoming commom place seeing 1.44mb/2.88mb dual. 95 introduced the cd while still seeing floppies available.

Then you briefly saw the old Zip disk come into play before optical drives included dvd burners over 1x/2x! The larger capacity optical media was the eventual there. And now you see 64gb usb fliash drives and 2tb hard drives available.

 

[PhreePhly]

Hi guys
... - Windows NT -- even to get the simplest app to work on this took armies of IT support staff -- why on earth corporations loved this server when much better Linux systems were around I will never know.

...

Cheers
jimbo

Linux was just being birthed when NT was released. NT was released in mid-1993. Linus started work on Linux in 1991. No large Corp was going to install a non-commercial server OS that early in its infancy. NT was the product of a large and respected software company, and having Dave Cutler's name attached brought a bit of prestige to the OS.

Once corporations attached themselves to NT, moving to a Linux infrastructure was costly. Remember, Windows had an even larger % of the market than it has today. Windows was the future of desktop computing in the enterprise, and so a Windows server made sense.

PhreePhly

 

[Night Hawk]

Linux was derived from UNIX the much older platform developed at Bell Labs in the late 60s.

THE UNIX ORAL HISTORY PROJECT
Bell Laboratories
http://www.princeton.edu/~mike/expotape.htm

LINUX is a free version of UNIX† that runs on Intel/Cyrix/AMD Pentium, Intel 80x86, Motorola/IBM PowerPC, Motorola 680x0, Sun SPARC, SGI MIPS, DEC Alpha, HP PA-RISC, DEC VAX, ARM, API 1000+, and CL-PS7110. operating system summaries​

 

[PhreePhly]

Linux was derived from UNIX the much older platform developed at Bell Labs in the late 60s.

THE UNIX ORAL HISTORY PROJECT
Bell Laboratories
http://www.princeton.edu/~mike/expotape.htm​

LINUX is a free version of UNIX† that runs on Intel/Cyrix/AMD Pentium, Intel 80x86, Motorola/IBM PowerPC, Motorola 680x0, Sun SPARC, SGI MIPS, DEC Alpha, HP PA-RISC, DEC VAX, ARM, API 1000+, and CL-PS7110. operating system summaries​

Actually, Linux was derived from Minix, not Unix. Trust me, MS was well aware of Unix, and created NT to compete with it. If you read further into the history of Unix, you will see why MS wanted to create its own server OS. Unix was extremely fragmented by the time NT came out. There were questions of ownership, licensing, etc.

While many love to look at "Unix" as the pinnacle of security, it has gone through its own share of being hacked. A properly administered Server 2003 or Server 2008 box is as secure as a properly administered Unix box.

PhreePhly

 

[Night Hawk]

Actually, Linux was derived from Minix, not Unix. Trust me, MS was well aware of Unix, and created NT to compete with it. If you read further into the history of Unix, you will see why MS wanted to create its own server OS. Unix was extremely fragmented by the time NT came out. There were questions of ownership, licensing, etc.

While many love to look at "Unix" as the pinnacle of security, it has gone through its own share of being hacked. A properly administered Server 2003 or Server 2008 box is as secure as a properly administered Unix box.

PhreePhly

Minux was simply another dirivative of something else like SUN's Solaris Unix base and IBM while MS was the later starter in the OS field following the introduction of 1.0. By then the x86 processor following the 8086, 8088 were making that possible.

Server 2008 would be the thing to be looking at now with that on the way.

 

[Barman58]

Microsoft has always been well aware of UNIX and its possible usage on the desktop.

Xenix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So maybe Bill was the first Linus

 

[Night Hawk]

You'll notice that was MS plus not MS alone working with AT&T a large communications company. Time frame "early 70s" while Windows 1.0 followed the early forms of MS Dos.
1985: Windows 1.0

The first version of Windows provided a new software environment for developing and running applications that use bitmap displays and mouse pointing devices. Before Windows, PC users relied on the MS-DOS® method of typing commands at the C prompt (C:\). With Windows, users moved a mouse to point and click their way through tasks, such as starting applications.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx

Then there was the later startup of the server type rather then desktop as far as Windows was concerned.

Windows Products and Technologies History

Windows Server Timeline

Published: June 5, 2002 | Updated: June 30, 2003

In 1988, Microsoft formed what would become the development team for the Microsoft Windows NT® product. The team's goal was to develop a 32-bit, multipurpose operating system in anticipation of a PC chip architecture that was still a few years away. Microsoft Windows Server™ 2003 is the evolution of the server operating system that Microsoft began with the release of the first version of Windows NT Server in 1993. Windows Products and Technologies History: Windows Server Timeline

 

[PhreePhly]

Minux was simply another dirivative of something else like SUN's Solaris Unix base and IBM while MS was the later starter in the OS field following the introduction of 1.0. By then the x86 processor following the 8086, 8088 were making that possible.

Server 2008 would be the thing to be looking at now with that on the way.

Minix was Unix-like, but based on a microkernel. Remember, Linux was first assembled on Minix systems. Linus decided to use a monolithic kernel as opposed to the microkernel.

MS was late, but the chief architect was Dave Cutler, of VMS fame. Also, NT was originally planned to run on the MIPS R4000 chip, but MIPS couldn't get a chip done in time. The original NT also ran on the DEC Alpha chip. There were PowerPC versions of NT 3.51 and NT 4.0, I believe.

Well its Server 2008 R2 that we need to be looking for. Server 2008 uses the Vista SP1 kernel, wereas Server 2008 R2 will be using the Windows 7 kernel.

For the record, I'm not trying to nitpick your postings, I just remember that time fairly well. I was in the NT 3.1 beta, trying to get our Windows for Workgroup 3.11 systems connected. We were running a Netware 3.2??? server at the time and were hoping to replace it. Fun times.

PhreePhly

 

[PhreePhly]

...
In 1988, Microsoft formed what would become the development team for the Microsoft Windows NT® product. The team's goal was to develop a 32-bit, multipurpose operating system in anticipation of a PC chip architecture that was still a few years away. Microsoft Windows Server™ 2003 is the evolution of the server operating system that Microsoft began with the release of the first version of Windows NT Server in 1993. Windows Products and Technologies History: Windows Server Timeline

Well, kinda. That development team was put in place to work with IBM and produce OS/2 and its Server companion. Cutler was hired on to strat the work on the server component. MS was caught somewhat offguard with how well Windows 3.0 took off. Gates saw that he had a winner in Windows and decided to part company with IBM. Cutler never planned on producing a Server with a GUI, and fought against adding the Windows Program Manager GUI to NT.

If you want to get a great background into the development of NT, get the book [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Show-Stopper-Breakneck-Generation-Microsoft/dp/0029356717/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237852471&sr=1-1"]Showstopper[/ame]! by G Pascal Zachary.

PhreePhly

 

[Night Hawk]

Digital Equipment Corp. certainly goes back a few years I guess bought out by Ashton some time back since the upper thinking was to keep everything "business machines only" while everyone else was selling to the consumer in general. The bottom fell out there fast!

Other companies have also changed hands or simply folded over as well like Packard Bell, Epson, CompaQ now HP, and the list goes on. As far as the RC2 for Server 2009 are you surprized to see the 7 kernel implimented there? It stands to reason that 7 replacing Vista would also make sense to replace the Vista portion of the next server edition with the better.

 

[PhreePhly]

Digital Equipment Corp. certainly goes back a few years I guess bought out by Ashton some time back since the upper thinking was to keep everything "business machines only" while everyone else was selling to the consumer in general. The bottom fell out there fast!

Other companies have also changed hands or simply folded over as well like Packard Bell, Epson, CompaQ now HP, and the list goes on. As far as the RC2 for Server 2009 are you surprized to see the 7 kernel implimented there? It stands to reason that 7 replacing Vista would also make sense to replace the Vista portion of the next server edition with the better.

Actually DEC was bought by Compaq in the late 1990s (1997 or 1998), who was then bought by HP (in 2002?).

I only mentioned server 2008 R2 in response to you singling out Server 2008. There are still quite a few Server 2003 systems up and running and secure.

Well, I think we have strayed pretty far from the OP, so I'll just stop here. Sorry for derailing the thread.

PhreePhly

 

[jfar]

Hi, no, sorry not at the moment.

 

[Night Hawk]

Actually DEC was bought by Compaq in the late 1990s (1997 or 1998), who was then bought by HP (in 2002?).

I only mentioned server 2008 R2 in response to you singling out Server 2008. There are still quite a few Server 2003 systems up and running and secure.

Well, I think we have strayed pretty far from the OP, so I'll just stop here. Sorry for derailing the thread.

PhreePhly

That's not actual derailing but simply adding additional information on the progression since 3.0. I was likely thinking of the Ashton-Tate Digital buy out/merger being rediscussed about the same time as hearing about Dec.