backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by Iridium130m.. on Mar 23 at 7:02 PM


Getting started with MS-DOS 5.0...  (Source: YouTube/The Rasteri)

Entering the world of Windows with Windows 1.0...  (Source: YouTube/The Rasteri)

Windows 3.1 -- ah, the memories...  (Source: YouTube/The Rasteri)

Windows XP: Now we're in the modern era!  (Source: YouTube/The Rasteri)

It's Windows 7... with Reversi!  (Source: YouTube/The Rasteri)
Iterative upgrade experiment reveals intriguing overlooked details about what is preserved and what isn't

An enterprising UK IT user who goes by "The Rasteri" on YouTube has completed an incredible "experiment" [video], in which he installed every major version of Windows, upgrading, in order of their release, inside a virtual machine.

He describes in the video, "It is hoped that this will shed light on how the Windows upgrade process has changed over the years."

For his testbed he used a machine running VMWare.  He says he selected VMWare based on its snapshot and video recording capabilities.  Also, importantly, VMWare offered full support for all legacy Windows operating systems.

I.  Early Windows -- a Slow Evolution

To start, he installed MS-DOS 5.0 on the virtual machine, as most early versions of Windows required it as a starting point for installation.  He describes, "Installation was surprisingly easy for an operating system of this age.  It even partitioned and formatted the hard drive."

He shows off the MS-DOS shell, which, while offering a GUI, was not a true relative of Windows, in his opinion.  Before installing any version of Windows he installs a couple of games -- Monkey Island and Doom 2.

Windows 1.0 -- of Ballmer sales infamy -- was then installed, with EGA graphics (Windows 1.0 predates VGA).  No pointing device was selected as serial mice were the only options and VMWare doesn't support them.

He then breezed through Windows 2.0 (which supported VGA and PS/2 mice).  He then verified the games installed on DOS were still compatible and admired at the new printer settings.  Notably, Windows 2.0 did not copy over the windows.ini config file from Windows 1.0.

Moving ahead, he started installing Windows 3.0.  He notes that it preserves the Windows 2.0 windows.ini file, though it was unable to automatically detect the DOS games.  He was able to reach the games by going in to the program manager and manually creating new program instances.

Windows 3.1 was then installed.  While Windows 3.0 merely preserved the color scheme, Windows 3.1 preserved the keyboard and display settings, as well.  It also requested a user's name and company upon installation.  It also preserves the program groups that were hand-created in Windows 3.0.

Next up was Windows 95.  To get there, he had to install MSCDEX CD drivers to install.  He calls the setup procedure "very well polished compared to previous version and clearly intended for novices to be able to perform."  The setup reportedly took 30 minutes.  This OS introduced right click menu bars.  Program Manager groups were auto-converted to start menu objects.  The previous DOS Shell worked even though it was not included with the install.

Next up was Windows 98.  As there was no upgrade version, he installed a full install process.  The process took an hour and a half.  But all programs still launched correctly, at least.

Installing Windows 98 SE, the time was almost as painfully long, but it could be installed directly from within Windows 95. According to Rasteri "nothing of note changed."  

II. Entering the NT Era

Moving on to Windows 2000, the first NT-based operating system installed.  Like Windows 98, an upgrade CD wasn't available, but at least the CD could run from within Windows 98, as with the Windows 95 to Windows 98 SE upgrade.  

Rasteri notes the fast install time (45 minutes) and auto account setup as perks.  Desktop colors from Windows 2.0 were preserved (in effect) 13 years later.  The background was now displayed in beautiful undithered glory.  This was due to an increased default display bit depth. Downsides include that the games would hang due to poor DOS support.

Windows XP SP3 would not install, so SP2 was used.  The theme was reset to a "Luna" theme, scrapping the old themes.  And the install took 1 hour and 10 minutes.  But at least Doom 2 and Monkey Island worked again, due to improved DOS support.  The pink color scheme was re-applied for testing's sake.

Installing Vista via DVD took "the longest yet" -- two hours.  The color scheme was again scrapped.  Mr. Rasteri unfortunately fails to note whether Doom 2 and Monkey Island still worked (we're guessing they didn't).

Finally he arrives at Windows 7, Microsoft's current OS.  The color scheme was dropped yet again, but at least the program groups were still properly preserved.  Legacy applications in the Windows folder like "Cardfile" and "Calendar" were surprisingly preserved.

Recorder, Terminal, and ("can you believe it!?") Reversi were also included.  The hard drive volume was labeled MS-DOS 5.

III. Conclusions

As Rasteri concludes in the video, fascinatingly this test confirms that a great deal of information, including program groups and installed files, can pass from Windows 1.0 all the way to Windows 7.  Certain features like the screen themes, though, were scrapped at multiple steps along the way, due to display changes.

If nothing else, the video is worth a quick watch as, well, we virtually all use Windows.  For most, it will be a real trip down memory lane.

You might have noticed that the much-loathed Windows ME, released in 2000, appeared to be purposefully excluded from the succession line.  Windows ME essentially crippled many DOS applications, among the reasons for its dirt-poor reputation.   

The only think to truly cap this incredible upgrade experiment would be to go and watch current Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer selling Windows 1.0 in his younger years [video]!



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

First NT Operating System
By HomerTNachoCheese on 3/3/2011 2:52:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Moving on to Windows 2000, the first NT-based operating system.


I thought Windows NT was the first NT operating system.




RE: First NT Operating System
By StraightCashHomey on 3/3/2011 3:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I guess he couldn't have possibly meant it in a different context.


RE: First NT Operating System
By HomerTNachoCheese on 3/3/2011 3:16:05 PM , Rating: 3
Just a quick look at Wikipedia would reveal that there were 4 versions of Windows NT using the NT kernel before Windows 2000.

I was thinking that maybe this guy was just walking through "home versions" of Windows. But then he used Windows XP Professional rather than Home Edition. Makes sense, since I would not ever want XP Home at home either.

And what is up with there being no upgrade CDs available for certain versions? Maybe it is more correct to say that he just could not find any.


RE: First NT Operating System
By banvetor on 3/4/2011 3:43:24 AM , Rating: 5
Guys,

I think Jason just meant that W2k was the first NT version that the guy installed... I believe it is pretty obvious that W2k was not the first NT Windows... that was, I will take a wild guess, Windows NT.

Ease up a bit! :P


RE: First NT Operating System
By HomerTNachoCheese on 3/4/2011 8:31:51 AM , Rating: 3
It was simply an error to state that Windows 2000 was the first NT operating system. It would be more correct to say that Windows 2000 was the first NT operating system within the upgrade path from Windows 98, as there is no upgrade to Windows NT 4.0 or earlier from Windows 98.

Really all of this is irrelevant. The article is about what is preserved throughout the process.


RE: First NT Operating System
By FITCamaro on 3/10/2011 8:52:34 AM , Rating: 3
Windows 2000 was the first Windows NT based consumer level OS.


RE: First NT Operating System
By kattanna on 3/4/2011 11:19:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just a quick look at Wikipedia would reveal that there were 4 versions of Windows NT using the NT kernel before Windows 2000


yep!

i remember beta testing the first couple of versions of NT

good times!


RE: First NT Operating System
By Azethoth on 3/6/2011 4:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
Ah how the memories fade. Windows NT was a separate code base, until it finally mated with the Windows (DOS based) code base in ... Windows 2000. So yes, not the first NT (New Technology or originally "N-Ten") since those existed since 1993, but the first WINDOWS + NT combo.

After Windows 2k, all Windows OSes are based on NT.


RE: First NT Operating System
By Mitch101 on 3/6/2011 4:47:12 PM , Rating: 3
All the Microsoft people I met used to call NT = Novell Terminator. Seems to have done its job.


RE: First NT Operating System
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/7/2011 6:21:22 PM , Rating: 3
Novell never really evolved where as Microsoft's NT line moved ahead by leaps nad bounds with each release. Between running a Novell Netware network or a Windows AD network, I'd go with AD every time, Novell was and still is a pain in the padded ass.


RE: First NT Operating System
By Smilin on 3/16/2011 1:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
Big MS fan here but Novell Netware was superior on many levels at that time. The problem was they couldn't come up with a decent app server to save their lives. MS had great app servers so you always ended up with mixed shops...eventually the question got asked "why are we doing both?" and Novell got kicked out the door.


RE: First NT Operating System
By Iridium130m on 3/23/2011 7:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
If I remember correctly, there was zero upgrade path from 9x to NT, so this experiment wouldn't allow it, so the he had to skip to 2000.

But NT rcoked for basic office stuff, especially on my old Cyrix chip that loved 32bit code.

Memories...on the corner of my mind...


Very interesting
By Ammohunt on 3/3/2011 2:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
I remember swaping explorer.exe with progman.exe in windows 95 for that retro feel. Funny thing is that all this compatibility crap between versions is the very reason microsoft OSe's were so bloated. People complained for years when 16-bit app support was shelved.




RE: Very interesting
By mindless1 on 3/4/2011 4:09:38 AM , Rating: 2
Uhh, no. The OS bloat continued to grow at ever faster rates after that. Think about it, in only a dozen years we have gone from a couple hundred MB install to several GB, the amount of memory recommended just to run the OS today is larger than the entire HDD capacity required then.

I'm not suggesting we didn't gain important new features, on on the contrary but it's always startling how few new features are added as a feature per MB increase ratio.


Typos
By Choppedliver on 3/3/2011 2:51:49 PM , Rating: 3
I think the typo police on here are ridiculous sometimes, but that one was painful to read




Slow day
By KayDat on 3/3/2011 2:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
Slow news day huh?




Oh Ballmer
By geddarkstorm on 3/4/2011 5:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
Did that man EVER have a full head of hair?




You gotta love.
By Smilin on 3/4/2011 5:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
Now that Apple and Google are becoming serious OS players I wonder how well they'll pull off the same?

The worst shock Microsoft users have ever experienced to their ecosystem was Vista (new driver models and whatnot) but that pales in comparison to Apple ecosystem shocks (OS9->OSX, PPC->x86, etc). Apple has never had success for so long so it's never been an issue before. iOS is wildly popular and here to stay.

Google may be able to duck many of these problems as they (and Microsoft) are heading towards the cloud now.

Time will tell.




Okay wonderful
By sxr7171 on 3/16/2011 12:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
So Windows will preserve settings from OSes from 2 decades ago. The one thing Windows needs now is to ditch it all and start fresh. Badly.




Experimental Journalism, Too
By Xonoahbin on 3/3/11, Rating: -1
RE: Experimental Journalism, Too
By ksherman on 3/3/2011 2:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
Bigger issue... They pretty much just transcribed the video. Lame effort.

But, MS does deserve some credit here.


RE: Experimental Journalism, Too
By Hieyeck on 3/3/2011 3:15:16 PM , Rating: 5
You know, many moons ago, I used to tell Jason:

"Blog section is over there --->"

And now Xonoahbin:

"<--- News section is over there".

It's a blog. It's interesting stuff that Jason thought us nerds would be interested in.


RE: Experimental Journalism, Too
By The Raven on 3/3/2011 3:47:16 PM , Rating: 1
lol

Yes. I see that complaint often from those who don't see this...
quote:
Jason Mick (Blog) - March 3, 2011 2:09 PM

I think the problem is that though the article screams blog, the letters that label these articles as a blog do so in a less than eyecatching manner.


RE: Experimental Journalism, Too
By tmouse on 3/4/2011 8:13:40 AM , Rating: 2
Just to be clear the part you pointed out does NOT indicate a blog. ALL writers who do blog have that after their name, it is a link to their blogs.

Now if people bother to look EVERY story has its section posted in ORANGE ABOVE the title. THERE is where the word blog is placed when its a blog (also in ORANGE). Its fairly easy to see if one bothers to look.


By The Raven on 3/4/2011 4:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you. I should be rated down. I didn't notice the orange type for some reason. I see the little letters better... hmm... Is there something wrong with me or is orange a bad color?


RE: Experimental Journalism, Too
By Hieyeck on 3/4/2011 12:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
Addendum: This showed up in my local paper's website today.

http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/technology...

That's right, not in a blog. A full on article. Apparently, contrary to your affirmation, this IS newsworthy.

Props to Jason for picking this up before news outlets!


RE: Experimental Journalism, Too
By morphologia on 3/3/2011 6:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
As others have pointed out, IT'S A BLOG POST, not presented as breaking news or anything.

Furthermore, criticizing the newsworthiness of an article is so utterly pointless that I'm committing a moral crime even responding to you.


RE: Experimental Journalism, Too
By Xonoahbin on 3/3/11, Rating: 0
By HomerTNachoCheese on 3/4/2011 8:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
So you think news sites should not have blogs? Tell that to The New York Times or Washington Post. They seem to believe that their readers prefer to have blogs on their sites. I prefer to have blogs included on DT as do many other DT readers.

Maybe this first appeared under Latest Headlines or Top Stories before being moved to the Latest Blog Posts within the home page. It appears to be in the correct place now.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki