Win 8 "preview"
I was pleased to see that John Cooper Clarke has never owned a mobile phone - apparently if they wanted to contact him for a gig, they had to phone his Mum. 
Quote from: ReedRichards Test your Windows IQ:
Windows 98: Good (at least by the time of the Second Edition).
Window ME: Bad
Windows XP: Good
Windows Vista: Bad
Windows 7: Good
Windows 8: ?
That's an unfair comparison.
Windows NT 4.0 - bad
Windows 2000 - good
Windows XP - good
Windows Vista - bad
Windows 7 - good
Windows 8 -
would be more accurate.
(and predicts windows 8 will be better than its predecessor)
Both of those lists are a little 'cherry-picked', make your own mind up which ones were any good out of:
1.0, 2.0, 2.1/286/386, 3.0, 3.1/3.11, NT3.1, NT3.5, 95, NT3.51, NT4, 98, 98SE, 2000, ME, XP, Server 2003/R2, Vista, Server 2008, 7, Server 2008R2, 8!
Ignoring 'server biased' versions we have 1.0, 2.0, 2.1/286/386, 3.1/3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8
Which I think is chronologically correct and (mostly) complete. ("E&OE" just in case
)
My own list of 'good enough' ones to date: 3.1/3.11, 95, 98SE, 2000, XP, 7. The real 'stinkers' I think were ME & Vista.
I'm not expecting Windows 8 to be the next great thing, windows 7 is good enough to last a while yet (at least on PCs).
1.0, 2.0, 2.1/286/386, 3.0, 3.1/3.11, NT3.1, NT3.5, 95, NT3.51, NT4, 98, 98SE, 2000, ME, XP, Server 2003/R2, Vista, Server 2008, 7, Server 2008R2, 8!
Ignoring 'server biased' versions we have 1.0, 2.0, 2.1/286/386, 3.1/3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8
Which I think is chronologically correct and (mostly) complete. ("E&OE" just in case
)My own list of 'good enough' ones to date: 3.1/3.11, 95, 98SE, 2000, XP, 7. The real 'stinkers' I think were ME & Vista.
I'm not expecting Windows 8 to be the next great thing, windows 7 is good enough to last a while yet (at least on PCs).
Extract reprinted from Byte, issue 12/1983, pp. 48-54. - about Windows 1.0
Quote Microsoft Windows seems to offer remarkable openness, reconfigurability, and transportability as well as modest hardware requirements and pricing. As a result, the desktop metaphor and mouse, intended to bring computing power to nontechnical people, are finally going to reach the hands of many such people. Barring a surprise product introduction from another company, Microsoft Windows will be the first large-scale test of the desktop metaphor in the hands of its intended users.
It is natural to wonder whether Microsoft Windows’ ability to run in limited memory and off floppy disks will result in noticeable delays during execution. Even Lisa with its megabyte of memory and 68000 microprocessor frequently asks the user to wait. Is the ease of use worth the waiting? Will Microsoft Windows somehow ingeniously avoid the problem of delays? The answers to these questions will shape the future of mass-market software.
The open approach and the presentation of Microsoft Windows as an extension of MS-DOS 2.0 will help attract the horde of programmers necessary to assure acceptable execution speeds on the IBM PC. Just as enough programmers working long enough on enough different approaches have made the Apple II perform feats that once seemed incredible, enough programmers working long enough on different approaches will make applications run fast under Microsoft Windows on ordinary hardware. Even if this judgment proves mistaken, Microsoft’s policy of openness and low pricing will have made possible a major experiment in mass-market software. For many software authors as well as users, this will be the first chance to test an approach to the user interface that has hovered just beyond reach for several years.
by Phil Lemmons