
Doing Windows, Part 3: A Pair of Strike-Outs - doppp
https://www.filfre.net/2018/07/doing-windows-part-3-a-pair-of-strike-outs/
======
Noumenon72
I love the roast they did to apologize for Windows being vaporware for so
long.

> Gates said that Ballmer had wanted to cut features: “He came up with this
> idea that we could rename this thing Microsoft Window; we would have shipped
> that a long time ago.”

------
iforgotpassword
The interesting question remains: why did they keep going? Windows 1 failed
horribly (just like similar products), why make a second version? And
secondly, why make it compatible with windows 1 if nobody was using it
anyways. This is usually the perfect moment to fix old mistakes, change the
architecture, etc. It was all there in windows 1... GlobalAlloc, SendMessage,
etc.

You can take a windows 1 binary, patch the PE header to say it's for windows
2, use Borland resource editor to recompile any embedded resources, and then
it will run on 32bit windows 10.

~~~
mwcampbell
What architecture changes would you have wanted for Windows 2.0, given the
constraint of running on an original 8086? (IIRC, that constraint wasn't
lifted until Windows 3.0.)

~~~
iforgotpassword
This was more of a general comment. I mean sure, if you couldn't have designed
it any better given the technical constraints this makes sense, but just from
personal experience there is always something you wish you'd have done
differently in retrospect. This is why I can only assume there must have been
at least one critical customer they didn't want to piss off, or it was
somewhat of a proof of dedication to backwards compatibility, as in "see, even
if nobody is using our product we still make the next version compatible".

------
pietroglyph
This is a fantastic, in-depth series (I can't wait for more!) It really shows
how much success is based on luck and timing. Be sure to read the first two
parts, if you haven't already: [https://www.filfre.net/2018/06/doing-windows-
part-1-ms-dos-a...](https://www.filfre.net/2018/06/doing-windows-part-1-ms-
dos-and-its-discontents/)

------
willtim
A very enjoyable read, but it's a shame there was no mention of Digital
Research GEM, which did ship in 1985. I remember trying it on various Amstrad
PC machines in the UK and being very impressed. I never saw an Apple Macintosh
at that time, even for sale in a shop, probably due to its price. A few years
later GEM starting shipping with Atari ST machines. I presume the fate of GEM
was ultimately tied to that of DR.

~~~
digi_owl
He has already done an article on Atari ST, and GEM is included there.

[https://www.filfre.net/2015/04/the-68000-wars-part-2-jack-
is...](https://www.filfre.net/2015/04/the-68000-wars-part-2-jack-is-back/)

He is basically working through the years, touch upon the major topics of each
one as he goes. I suspect that he is building some background on Windows 3.x,
the first really successful version of Windows, with these articles.

