Talk:Windows 1.0

Development

A lot of this section feels questionable and subjective. Perhaps it should be revised.--Overdoze (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2018 (GMT)

If anyone sees the new build edit.

https://www.betaarchive.com/database/view_release.php?uuid=7d3867f7-e414-45b6-84cc-3ec9d210d8de --LilShootDawg (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Pre-DR5 builds

Hello, I'm thinking about changing names for some versions:

Present:

Microsoft Windows "BYTE" build

Microsoft Interface Manager Internal Test Release #3

Microsoft Windows "InfoWorld" build

Microsoft Windows "PC Mag" build

Microsoft Windows "Fall COMDEX" build

Microsoft Windows "Monthly ASCII" build

Microsoft Windows 1984-04 build

Microsoft Windows 1.0 Development Release #1

Microsoft Windows 1.0 Development Release #2

Microsoft Windows 1.0 Development Release #3

Microsoft Windows 1.0 Development Release #4

Microsoft Windows 1.0 "Tandy 2000" build

New:

Microsoft Windows 1.0 1983-12 build

Microsoft Interface Manager Internal Test Release #3

Microsoft Windows 1.0 1983-11-21 build

Microsoft Windows 1.0 1983-11-29 build

Microsoft Windows 1.0 1983-11-20 build

Microsoft Windows 1.0 1984-01-24 build

Microsoft Windows 1.0 1984-04-09 build

Microsoft Windows 1.0 Development Release #1

Microsoft Windows 1.0 Development Release #2

Microsoft Windows 1.0 Development Release #3

Microsoft Windows 1.0 Development Release #4

Microsoft Windows 1.0 1984-10 build

- Try to tell me if it can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.242.114 (talk • contribs)

For Windows builds that don't have a clear build number designation we try to use the most friendly page name, which can be the name of the magazine where screenshots appeared, name of the event where it has been demonstrated or other easily memorable hint. Your proposal does try to introduce some consistency to the names, which is ones, however the builds are usually referred to by the names of the magazine/events. Not to mention, the "Byte" build can't possibly be from 1983-12, because that'd mean it would be made after the COMDEX build, which unlike the Byte build is more similarly looking to the final version. The 1984-04 build can't be from 1984-04-09 specifically as the title bar seems to have been set to display the current date and time. The actual "watermark" is shown in the Monthly ASCII screenshots and doesn't seem to include any time information. --AlphaBeta (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it's impossible to know the exact date for most of these builds (system date is irrelevant here, as AlphaBeta said). So until any further evidence is found, I recommend we stick to the current names (magazines etc.).--Overdoze (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.242.114 (talk • contribs)

New Update

I added some links where you can download Windows 1.0 from WinWorld. Enjoy!:D -Oliverjade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverjade (talk • contribs)

It's against the rules. WinInsider (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

no links

the links are gone D: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverjade (talk • contribs)

Because providing download links are against the rules. WinInsider (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

VGA support for Windows 1.04

If only the IBM OEM of Windows 1.04 supported VGA, then why is it even included in the table? Ash (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)