Microsoft releases Windows 1.11 via the Windows Store

Quote:

---

However, this 775MB download is actually a game or entertainment app rather than an OS.

---

Read more.

That's quite a big download given the original Windows should run in the L2 cache of a single modern core without needing main memory :D

I often wonder if old DOS versions can even be coaxed to run on a modern PC hardware without resorting to virtual machines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

That's quite a big download given the original Windows should run in the L2 cache of a single modern core without needing main memory :D

I often wonder if old DOS versions can even be coaxed to run on a modern PC hardware without resorting to virtual machines.

---

It's probably all the emulation of the old code base/architecture. I wonder if any of the legacy code to run 1.11 even exists anywhere in the kernel anymore.

Pretty sure I've still got a boxed version of 1.0x somewhere. I'd have to find it to be sure what x was. I've certainly got various v2.x, 3.x, and later.

I remember evaluating 1.x for a project, along with DR's GEM, and though GEM was probably technically better, I felt MS had the more appealling design, and platform longevity. Boy, did I ever call that one right.

Not sure I have enough conventional memory.

Right, let's see:
DOS=high,umb
LH mscdex /d:mtmide01

Um...

Nah, that's all I remember and it's probably wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen999

Pretty sure I've still got a boxed version of 1.0x somewhere. I'd have to find it to be sure what x was. I've certainly got various v2.x, 3.x, and later.

I remember evaluating 1.x for a project, along with DR's GEM, and though GEM was probably technically better, I felt MS had the more appealling design, and platform longevity. Boy, did I ever call that one right.

---

Ah GEM, I remember that one, too. I kinda liked it. Not so good for games or greyscale (bluscale?) pr0n, however.

Only Microsoft could turn what used to fit into a floppy into a 775MB package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen999

I remember evaluating 1.x for a project, along with DR's GEM, and though GEM was probably technically better, I felt MS had the more appealling design, and platform longevity. Boy, did I ever call that one right.

---

GEM was nice to program. I always needed a bucket nearby to write Windows code, to the point I didn't put Windows development on my CV to try and avoid people asking me to do it. Shame the look and feel lawsuits of the 80's made the GEM desktop so horrible to use as well, but on the PC I had an old early copy of the desktop program to copy over and the Atari ST never adopted the broken design.

Ha ha that takes me back a fair bit :)

Windows 1.11 pff no thanks give me Workbench 1.3!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

GEM was nice to program. I always needed a bucket nearby to write Windows code, to the point I didn't put Windows development on my CV to try and avoid people asking me to do it. Shame the look and feel lawsuits of the 80's made the GEM desktop so horrible to use as well, but on the PC I had an old early copy of the desktop program to copy over and the Atari ST never adopted the broken design.

---

Yup, perfect example of the battle between better technology and commercial reality. The tech has a nasty habit of losing. VHS v. Betamax, anybody?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen999

Yup, perfect example of the battle between better technology and commercial reality. The tech has a nasty habit of losing. VHS v. Betamax, anybody?

---

Active Directory vs Novell eDirectory and NetWare is another!