Timeline for What key factor led to the sudden commercial success of MS Windows with v3.0?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
38 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 21, 2021 at 0:11 | answer | added | user3276207 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 12, 2021 at 22:52 | history | edited | user3840170 |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 18, 2020 at 10:55 | comment | added | Stephen Kitt | @UncleBod Windows 1.0. I know at least RM, Tandon, Tulip and Zenith shipped PCs with OEM versions of Windows 1.0 (or 1.01). What changed with 3.0 is that Windows started appearing pre-installed by default, rather than as an optional extra. | |
| Nov 18, 2020 at 10:25 | comment | added | UncleBod | What was the first Windows version that Microsoft started to sell as OEM product to be pre-installed on new PC clones? | |
| Nov 17, 2020 at 11:44 | comment | added | Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen | Also networking was beginning to show up. The network stack took precious memory from plain MS-DOS programs. | |
| Nov 17, 2020 at 5:42 | answer | added | Frog | timeline score: 0 | |
| S May 1, 2020 at 7:24 | history | suggested | hippietrail |
history tag
|
|
| May 1, 2020 at 4:55 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 1, 2020 at 7:24 | |||||
| Sep 29, 2019 at 0:48 | comment | added | CJ Dennis | Windows 3.0 was not an operating system. You had to boot into MS-DOS (the OS), then run Windows from DOS. Later it became common to have a boot script that automatically loaded Windows on boot. Modern Windows is now a full operating system. | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 7:34 | answer | added | Mark Williams | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 15:06 | comment | added | Walter Mitty | I remember reading in one of the tech magazines like PC World that they had now reached the point where they were no longer going to review new applications written for MS-DOS, but only ones written for Windows 3.0. Customer acceptance of 3.0 had reached a tipping point, and application developers had mostly followed the market. PS: I didn't yet have a Windows machine, but I was not much of a leading edge person, in my own buying choices. | |
| Jun 21, 2018 at 8:04 | history | edited | Stephen Kitt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Adjust the question to match the accepted answer.
|
| Jun 21, 2018 at 0:19 | vote | accept | Brian H | ||
| Apr 17, 2017 at 14:21 | comment | added | Matt Balent | Minesweeper was not in Windows 3.0 (shipped with Windows 3.1). Don't forget those fancy screensaver programs too (flying toasters, Simpsons, etc.) | |
| Mar 13, 2017 at 17:06 | vote | accept | Brian H | ||
| Jun 21, 2018 at 0:19 | |||||
| Mar 6, 2017 at 19:57 | comment | added | Stephen Kitt | @JeremyP I read that part of the question as referring to what people thought of as their operating system: people used to talk about running DOS PCs, with Windows 3.0 they started talking about running Windows PCs. (Of course you're right from a technical perspective.) | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 16:26 | comment | added | JeremyP | One quibble with the question: Windows 3 did not supplant MS-DOS. Windows 3 was a layer that ran on top of MS-DOS. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 16:25 | answer | added | JeremyP | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 13:30 | comment | added | Luaan | Older versions of Windows were also very popular - but not as standalone systems. Instead, applications bundled Windows, so you could get all the benefits of a full-blown GUI for your applications without requiring the user to buy (and run) Windows. The most obvious example is of course MS Office, which quickly shaped up to be one of the best office packages. Most people didn't even realize they're running Windows when they started Excel/Word (you didn't get the "shell" - program manager etc., just the one application). But ultimately, it takes time for a product to get really good and used. | |
| Mar 4, 2017 at 22:00 | comment | added | mschaef | @cbmeeks Good to hear. Still, I think it's worthwhile to present the differences for the benefit of those who were not. The scale, general attitude, and aspirations of the modern computer industry are so radically different then they were in the 1980's, and much moreso the 70's. | |
| Mar 4, 2017 at 21:46 | comment | added | cbmeeks | @mschaef yes, I was around for the computer market in the 90's. 80's and even the 70's. | |
| Mar 4, 2017 at 2:53 | answer | added | Mazura | timeline score: 10 | |
| Mar 3, 2017 at 19:00 | comment | added | mschaef | @cbmeeks I should also point out that the limit imposed by 16-bit addressing is far more onerous than the one we might see today imposed by 32-bit. 64K is a moderately sized text file. It almost takes video, etc. to get past 4GB. | |
| Mar 3, 2017 at 18:57 | comment | added | mschaef | @cbmeeks The computer marketplace in 1990 was a radically different place than today. To put it in perspective, Windows 3.0 sold 4 million copies in 1990 and was considered a huge success. In contrast, the iPhone sold about that many units per week in 2016, which was a slowdown from 2015. 1980's and 90's era computer buyers generally tended to be more avidly interested than today - more serious hobbyists and professional users that'd be more likely to know those kinds of details. (Or at least feel the pinch of the smaller address spaces.) | |
| Mar 3, 2017 at 15:30 | answer | added | mschaef | timeline score: 106 | |
| Mar 3, 2017 at 15:21 | comment | added | Stephen Kitt | @Buhb no doubt that played a role, but for later versions of Windows (it was added to Windows in version 3.1, after being released for OS/2 and then in the first Entertainment Pack). | |
| Mar 3, 2017 at 15:01 | comment | added | Buhb | One word: Minesweeper | |
| Mar 3, 2017 at 13:19 | comment | added | cbmeeks | @Joe those points may be true for the computer elite but the average person (the primary market) wouldn't have known about memory segmentation or anything better than "386 > 286 which means 386 go faster". | |
| Mar 3, 2017 at 10:21 | answer | added | john_e | timeline score: 25 | |
| Mar 3, 2017 at 4:05 | answer | added | Kevin | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 3, 2017 at 2:26 | answer | added | alephzero | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 3, 2017 at 0:05 | history | edited | Stephen Kitt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Typos.
|
| Mar 2, 2017 at 22:31 | answer | added | snips-n-snails | timeline score: 17 | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 22:30 | comment | added | Stephen Kitt | @BrianH 486s were still very rare in 1990. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 22:21 | answer | added | Stephen Kitt | timeline score: 94 | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 21:49 | comment | added | Brian H | @Joe makes sense, but the 486 processor seems more coincident with 1990 that the 386. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 21:44 | comment | added | Joe | I'd be willing to guess it was a combination of the 386 processor making it easier to protect & segment memory for apps, and improved graphics/resolutions leading to a reasonable UI compared to previous versions. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 21:26 | history | asked | Brian H | CC BY-SA 3.0 |