To: Dalberg-Acton
Waaaay back when Windows 3.1 was out, they didn’t care HOW you got it.Windows 3.1 ran on top of DOS. The first version of Windows that was arguably an OS was 95.
10 posted on
05/18/2015 5:04:28 PM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
>
Windows 3.1 ran on top of DOS. The first version of Windows that was arguably an OS was 95. Hey I'll argue that. :-)
95 ran on DOS. 98 ran on DOS. ME ran on DOS (barely).
If you don't think so, try launching any of them without it.
The only trick they played (with ME at least, maybe with 98, I forget) was that you no longer had to explicitly put "WIN" at the end of your AUTOEXEC.BAT, to launch the Windows application from COMMAND.COM. It was the implied default. But even that was really just a kludge.
I was SO glad when Win2000 came out -- I was so sick of hacking DOS... LOL.
19 posted on
05/18/2015 5:20:12 PM PDT by
dayglored
(Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is...sounding pretty good about now.)
To: tacticalogic
Windows 3.1 ran on top of DOS. The first version of Windows that was arguably an OS was 95. I love windows 95
To: tacticalogic
Win95 also ran over DOS, Win98 was the first that the GUI was integrated.
43 posted on
05/18/2015 9:00:24 PM PDT by
Texas Fossil
(Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!)
To: tacticalogic; dayglored; Texas Fossil
You all are forgetting about Windows NT 3.1 which came out in 1993. Ran on MIPS, Alpha and Intel and was most certainly not dependent on DOS.
I think I still have a few CDs and the complete set of floppies for the install :)
46 posted on
05/18/2015 9:51:07 PM PDT by
VeniVidiVici
(Hey, hey, GayKKK. Who you gonna lynch today?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson