Talk:Windows 1.0 11/20/83 build

Couple of points
Alright, here's a couple of points I'd like to make:

1. The photos clearly came from my blog post about them. Filenames, resolution, sizes all match, and I was at least as far as I know the first and only person to get those photos from a collector of such magazines. Some of the text seems rather inspired by the same blog post too. If you source your material like that, please provide a reference to it at least.

2. Having seen and analyzed in depth many such photos over time, I'm feeling rather confident in my position that this isn't two different builds, because photo quality, angle, size, their contents, etc. don't suggest this. I've written on my blog before that the version text is probably shown on start and then disappears eventually. And there's nothing else to suggest it's two different builds other than this.

3. Based on the version text, this is the same build as the Windows 1.0 "Monthly ASCII" build, I even mentioned the L'Ordinateur photos in my latest edit to it and linked to my blog posts. Which means this is a duplicate page.

With that said, I see little reason for this page to exist, I suggest see the contents are polished and merged into the Monthly ASCII page.--Overdoze (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. I got the pictures from another source, not your blog. It was from a collection of Windows 1.0 pre-DR5 images.
 * 2. You are the first one to write about it doesn't mean people who write the same thing after copied from you. Just like you know 3 + 3 = 6, I get the same answer as you in an exam and you say I copied you. You showed no evidence of me copying you.
 * 3. There is no evidence suggesting it is identical to Windows 1.0 "Monthly ASCII" build nor there is any supporting the build string disappears after some time or something else is displayed there. It is all our assumptions which could be right or wrong and I am not saying you are wrong.
 * 4. They were found in 2 different magazines, so they should be in different sections. Even if you want to merge the two together, merge the Windows 1.0 "Monthly ASCII" build to Windows 1.0 "L'Ordinateur Individuel" builds because more information is shown here and better quality pictures.


 * I can tell you with 100% certainty that these are the images I cropped from the scans I recieved, so they came from me indirectly either way. Obviously I don't have a copyright claim on the images, but I do happen to have a rather large collection of such photos on my site. It's public and freely accessible, but since I spent significant amount of my time searching tons of magazine issues for such photos (the ones I did find personally, not all the images I keep obviously), I appreciate a link back.


 * As far as the text goes, I never said you copied my post. If you read again carefully, you'll see I actually said "Some of the text seems rather inspired by the same blog post too." And that's because it goes over largely the same topics in a similar tone, it goes over the file list much the same way. The only stuff that's not already mentioned in the post is the two builds theory, which I evidently don't subscribe to. Of course it's not copied word for word, but from my point of view, it seems pretty likely your text has been at least partially inspired by my post in some way. And as I said, in such cases, I appreciate a link to the post. I don't intend to further push this issue though, I'm primarily interested in the points below.


 * There's very little hard evidence to be found in these photos, because there's many variables at play and a photo can only reveal so much compared to video footage. My point was that the photos seem to be in clear chronological order - the time that Clock displays supports this. The demo very likely started with an empty desktop and minimized apps (Clock shows earliest time in the first photo), then in a similar fashion to the COMDEX demo, the applications and windowing functions were demonstrated (time slowly passes in Clock). Now get this - the date in the version string and the system date (seen in MS-DOS window) don't match in this case. This must mean the date in the string is not the current system date, which was (an unlikely) possibility I considered in the past as an alternative to compilation date theory. And since it's so nicely displayed next to the version, the only logical conclusion is that it's the date when the build was made. So why would two different builds (this one and the ASCII build) display the same version string with same compile date? Especially when they're visually very similar if not identical (see my older blog posts for a list of things to look for in the photos to establish a probable timeline for such builds). That's why while I'm not saying this is a definitive answer, it's far more likely that all these photos are the same build. The "evidence" for that outweighs the "evidence" for the different builds theory.


 * So if all these photos show the same build, then it's only logical that the version string disappears at some point for whatever reason as it's gone after some time passes - maybe it's timed to disappear, maybe it disappears when something else has to be displayed there (resizing tips, system date and time via the system menu, perhaps other strings we haven't seen yet), maybe something else entirely. But like I said, it's very likely these are all the same build, which then leads to the conclusion that the version string goes away eventually. And that could also be an explanation why we don't see it in any other photos, except the one that has the 11/1/83 date and is not verified as authentic.


 * I'm fine with merging either page into the other, as long as the information is kept in one place due to the above opinion - same build photographed by different magazines. It's not the first time this has happened, the "PC Mag" build was shown in several different magazines, and it's clearly the same build in all the photos since it's also the exact same photo.--Overdoze (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add that regardless of where you got the images from, it's good to provide an online source for them at least. If it's a magazine, a link to the specific issue is good enough. If it's a website, link to that. Adding images and information without citing a source makes it harder for other people to find them online and verify them. Simply mentioning a magazine they're from won't do.--Overdoze (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The source where I've got my images from was an archive. It was shared to be using OneDrive so I can't link to that source but I could put a reference to your blog seeing you being so confident about the source of those images.


 * I did not even see your blog before (at least not what I can remember) and I've got the inspiration from the Microsoft Windows 1.0 Tandy 2000 builds, where in has a file list and everything.


 * I think we can just call it "Microsoft Windows Version 1.00 (11/20/83) builds", remove the arguments about the number of builds and merge the content of both the Windows 1.0 "Monthly ASCII" build and Windows 1.0 "L'Ordinateur Individuel" builds into that one.


 * That's fine with me.--Overdoze (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)