[HN Gopher] Why did Windows 95 setup use three operating systems?
___________________________________________________________________
Why did Windows 95 setup use three operating systems?
Author : mooreds
Score : 90 points
Date : 2024-11-17 19:54 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (devblogs.microsoft.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (devblogs.microsoft.com)
| jmclnx wrote:
| I never thought of Windows 3.1 as an OS. The other 2 was MS-DOS
| and Windows 95.
| rusk wrote:
| Agree, the terminology in those days was "shell".
|
| Though Windows 95 was arguably similar running atop "DOS 7" it
| actually imposes its own 32-bit environment with its own
| "protected mode" drivers once booted. Dropping to DOS reverted
| to "real mode".
| tliltocatl wrote:
| So did the lastest Win3.1 for workgroups, just MS spared all
| the fanfare for Win95. Not sure if the 3.1 version in the
| installers does.
| rusk wrote:
| Windows 3.1 was just a graphical shell. All the drivers and
| stuff were still managed by DOS. You still needed to
| configure your system with config.sys
|
| EDIT it's coming back to me. Windows 3.1 did have a a
| subsystem for running 32 bit apps called Win32 I think
| that's what you mean. This was very much in the application
| space though.
|
| It still used cooperative multitasking and Win 95
| introduced preemptive.
| YakBizzarro wrote:
| It was Win32s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win32s
| rusk wrote:
| Thanks
|
| _"Win32s lacked a number of Windows NT functions,
| including multi-threading, asynchronous I /O, newer
| serial port functions and many GDI extensions. This
| generally limited it to "Win32s applications" which were
| specifically designed for the Win32s platform,[4]
| although some standard Win32 programs would work
| correctly"_
| kjellsbells wrote:
| It was a strange time back then for anyone who wanted to
| get online. Win3.1 had no TCP/IP stack so many folks used
| a third party download called Trumpet Winsock. IIRC you
| might have needed win32s in order to use it.
|
| Looking back, Microsoft were clearly in an incredibly
| complicat ed transitioning phase, with very little margin
| for error (no patching over the Internet!)
| nkrisc wrote:
| I was only 5 or 6 maybe when I used Windows 3.1 so I may
| be misremembering, but didn't it have an X on the desktop
| to close the GUI and return to the DOS prompt?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| My memory is that closing Program Manager exited windows.
| DHowett wrote:
| Bryan Lunduke has an article about this myth, actually!
|
| https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4037306/myth-
| windows-3-1-was...
|
| It's backed up by another Old New Thing article at https:
| //devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20100517-00/?p=14...
|
| The TL;DR is that Windows 3.1 effectively replaced DOS
| and acted as a hypervisor for it, while drivers could be
| written for Windows (and many were) or DOS (and
| presumably many more of those were actually _distributed_
| ). The latter category was run in hypervised DOS and the
| results bridged to Windows callers.
|
| (Edited after submission for accuracy and to add the Old
| New Thing link.)
| rbanffy wrote:
| I think it'd be fair to call it more than a shell. It was
| also a set of libraries that implemented the common user
| interface elements of Windows apps, similar to the
| Macintosh Toolbox but not in ROM.
| Hilift wrote:
| Another competitor shell at the time was "WordPerfect Office
| for DOS". Which I witnessed some people launch from Windows
| 3.11. I believe it had WordPerfect and what preceded
| GroupWise for email. https://mendelson.org/wpdos/shell.html
| xeromal wrote:
| I love that little nugget of info at the end. You could
| originally run excel standalone without an OS and it came with
| windows 2.1 bundled
| rusk wrote:
| I think it needed DOS ... just not the Windows "shell"
| skissane wrote:
| It came bundled with a stripped down version of Windows 2.x -
| missing the application launcher (in Windows 1.x/2.x known as
| MS-DOS Executive, replaced by Program Manager and File
| Manager in Windows 3.x), so it could only be used to run one
| application (Excel) unless you fiddled with its
| configuration.
|
| Yes it needed DOS because pre-3.11 Windows versions actually
| used the DOS kernel for all file access. When 32-bit file
| access was introduced in WfW 3.11, that was no longer true-
| but it was an optional feature you could turn off. In all
| pre-NT Windows versions, Windows is deeply integrated with
| DOS, even though in 9x/Me that integration is largely for
| backward compatibility and mostly unused when running 32-bit
| apps - but still so deeply ingrained into the system that it
| can't work without it.
|
| IIRC, Microsoft tried to sell the same stripped down single-
| app-only Windows version to other vendors, but found few
| takers. The cut-down Windows 3.x version used by Windows 95
| Setup is essentially the 3.x version of the same thing.
| Digital Research likewise offered a single app version of
| their GEM GUI to ISVs, and that saw somewhat greater uptake.
| simonjgreen wrote:
| Most interesting part of the whole thing for me! The later
| WinPE environments are some of the most overlooked computer
| environments out there but they were absolutely everywhere.
| EPOS, ATMs, digital signage, vending machines.
|
| And of course the subject of so many BSOD photos...
| reddalo wrote:
| Don't modern versions of Windows do the same? For example, I
| clearly remember that the Windows 10 installer first launches a
| Windows 7-like environment.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Yes that is Windows Preinstallation Environment (also known as
| Windows PE and WinPE)
|
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufactu...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Preinstallation_Enviro...
| zokier wrote:
| Aren't all modern (>xp) windowses just NT6 under the hood? Is
| there such clear delineation between 7 and 10 for example?
| rbanffy wrote:
| It feels like NT4, with 2000 on top of it, then a layer of
| XP, then Vista, then 7, then 8, then 10, and, finally, 11.
|
| It's not uncommon to do something that lands me on a dialog
| box I still remember from Windows NT 3.1. The upside is that
| they take backwards compatibility very seriously, probably
| only second to IBM.
| feldrim wrote:
| It continued as 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 for Windows 7, 8, and 8.1.
| But the NT kernel revamped for Windows 10. And they aligned
| the version numbers at that point. Windows 10 and 11 are both
| NT 10. The kernel has many differences within 6.x let alone
| the big leap to 10.
| nntwozz wrote:
| Just like macOS was Mac OS X (10) for a very long time,
| then they moved to 11 with Big Sur but it's really only in
| name.
|
| macOS Sequoia is version 15, whoever reaches 20 first wins
| right!?
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| They're all NT, though I'm not sure how you mean "NT6"; XP
| was NT 5, Windows 10 was NT 10, and I think 11 is 11.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| NT 6.3 was Windows 8.1, apparently.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_Windows_ver
| s...
| runjake wrote:
| There have been iterative substantial improvements to the NT
| architecture since Windows 2000 and later with Vista (where
| the UAC model started, rather poorly).
| pram wrote:
| The "mini" Windows 3.1 it came with was pretty much fully
| functional though, you could literally boot directly into
| PROGMAN.EXE as the main Windows 95 shell.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Program Manager is a shell and was actually included in Windows
| all the way through XP SP2 when it was phased out. You can
| probably run it in Windows Vista through 10 if you copy the
| .exe over, too.
| rbanffy wrote:
| If they were going to install a bare Windows 3, they could at
| least make an effort to ship a bare 95.
| Animats wrote:
| Because, when they did it right, in Windows NT 3.51, the users
| with legacy 16 bit applications screamed. There was a 16-bit DOS
| compatibility box, but it wasn't bug-compatible with DOS.
|
| Microsoft underestimated the inertia of the applications market.
| NT 3.51 was fine if you used it as a pure 32-bit operating
| system. You could even configure it without DOS compatibility.
| Few did.
| Onavo wrote:
| Something the Unix world can certainly learn from.
| brian-armstrong wrote:
| The fact that Windows can upgrade an installation in place with
| relatively high success is impressive. Is it possible to have an
| install that's been repeatedly upgraded all the way from MS-DOS
| without needing a reformat somewhere along the way?
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| There's various youtubers who have tried upgrading MS OSes thru
| as many versions as possible and they have taken it pretty far
| agumonkey wrote:
| Including preserving custom user config (colors, background
| images)
|
| I feel strange about hating on MS after the 2000s
| andrepd wrote:
| Not DOS, but Win95
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKs6yPD5_mI
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-17 23:00 UTC)