Timeline for Did Windows 2.x actually receive support until end of 2001?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21 at 16:12 | vote | accept | bjb | ||
| May 19 at 19:09 | answer | added | Yuhong Bao | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 28, 2022 at 3:09 | answer | added | xenoson | timeline score: 7 | |
| Apr 29, 2022 at 6:09 | comment | added | cup | We had an undersea cable system called PTAT-1 which used a Windows 2.11 front end. Not sure what sort of support we would have had from MS, if any. Windows in those days wasn't seen as an OS - just a graphical front end sitting on top DOS, very much like X windows sits on Unix. | |
| Apr 28, 2022 at 21:43 | answer | added | John Dallman | timeline score: 12 | |
| Apr 28, 2022 at 17:32 | comment | added | supercat | ...the cost of providing any kind of ongoing support for the Apple I. Among other things, Woz and Jobs would likely have been the only Apple employees who were capable of providing support for the Apple I, but an employee given schematics for both boards could probably have designed an adapter with minimal involvment by Woz and Jobs. I suspect that even if Apple might have done such a thing if anyone requested it, all of the owners of Apple I machines could better meet their needs by upgrading. | |
| Apr 28, 2022 at 17:30 | comment | added | supercat | @UncleBod: I suspect the support may have been similar to Woz & Jobs' support for the Apple I: if you have an Apple I, ship it to us and we'll give you a brand new Apple II as a no-cost upgrade. If one had designed a custom I/O card for the Apple I, it would be totally incompatible with any connectors that exist on the Apple II, but designign a right-angle adapter board would probably not have been very difficult. Indeed, if someone had designed a control system around an Apple I, the cost to Apple to design and build an adapter board would probably have been less than... | |
| Apr 28, 2022 at 17:00 | comment | added | IMSoP | @UncleBod I notice that MS-DOS 6.0 is also listed there with the same date, and that it's a few months after Windows XP finally made the NT kernel the default for home users. I wonder if there was a general roadmap drawn up for ending support for all DOS-based products, and these were mopped up as a "phase 0". | |
| Apr 28, 2022 at 16:04 | comment | added | bjb | @UncleBod that is my suspicion as well; with the age of the internet in full steam by that point, they probably did that to avoid someone asking for a patch/support since it was now practical to actually get it via internet instead of begging Microsoft to ship a box of floppies :-) | |
| Apr 28, 2022 at 14:39 | comment | added | UncleBod | What was the support given, one might wonder actually. According to web.archive.org/web/20050814234847/http://support.microsoft.com/… Microsoft stopped support of Windows 3.0 and all older versions at the same date. My guess is that someone just happened to realize that "Hey, we are legally supposed to support all these products, let's just drop the support officially from today." | |
| Apr 28, 2022 at 14:13 | comment | added | paxdiablo | Keep in mind that some companies, even if they drop general support, may still offer extended support for a fee. This can be a decent revenue generator. An example is all those ATMs that were running OS/2 long after its normal life was over. | |
| Apr 28, 2022 at 12:51 | comment | added | Jon Custer | Well, the one person who used 2.x was probably a vice president at Microsoft by then, so, yeah, they supported them. | |
| Apr 28, 2022 at 12:22 | history | asked | bjb | CC BY-SA 4.0 |