[Ham-Computers] Windoze flavors (long)...

[Phil Atchley]

Thank you Aaron
That explains a lot and makes sense as it is in chronological order.  It
looks to me like I need to get a copy of Win98se (as my latest DXtreme
upgrade requires that as a minimum to even load off the CD rom and DXreme
says it won't <presently> run under XP).

Additional note:  I was a long time DOS user going back to my first 8086
machine in 1983.  It'd run CPM or an upstart called dos.

73 de Phil  KO6BB

P.S.  AARON, your freq counter was mailed out insured this morning.

> Phil (et al),
>
> To answer your question about what OS to use, lets take a short trip
through time.  From the deep recesses of my mind, here's a brief history of
Windows....
>
> In the beginning, there was DOS.  Though it was an OK operating system,
many were lost at seeing an "A>" prompt.  "Bad command or filename" was just
too much to handle for some and the people demanded an easier way to operate
their $3000 new fangled computer.  Xerox's PARC developed a "windowed" GUI,
but never went far with it as the technology was way ahead of it's time and
they thought it would be too expensive to market.  Apple, however, saw the
potential to attract computer novices and illiterates by utilizing this new
system and developed the Mac.  A while later, Mr. Gates decided a similar
system was needed on the PC and this Windows 1.0 was born.
>
> All I can say about Windows 1.0 is "ugly"  Slow also comes to mind, but
hey, computers were slow back then.  However, it did work on my XT with EMS
at 640x400 in 2 colors.  Even better on a Hercules Monochrome Graphics Card
at 720x348 (in all it's amber or green glory).  Next came Windows 1.03 which
fixed some bugs, but kept the same "tiled" windows look.  All in all, it was
just a glorified program launcer.  5th Generation's DOS-based Direct Access
was a much better launcher.
>
> Microsoft Windows 2.0 came out a year later.  The biggest improvement was
the use of "overlapping" windows.  This version now required a 80286 with
1MB of RAM and an EGA or Herc MGC adapter.  v2.03 improved a bit on
performance and eliminated some ever present bugs.  If I remember correctly,
"UAE"'s (Universal Application Errors) were the norm.  Still a glorified
program launcher, but now some applications were starting to show up for
this new GUI environment.  I think MS Excel was the most popular as it
provided "sophisticated" graphics and spreadsheets to compete with Lotus
1-2-3.
>
> Windows v3.0 was released a couple of years later.  The requirements now
were a 80386 processor with 2MB RAM, 8MB HD, and a VGA adapter.  HGC support
was still available, but ugly.  Besides, S-VGA was now the norm.  UAE's were
gone, but I believe WAE's (Windows Application Error) were standard.  More
apps were now available and some were only available in a Windows flavor.
>
> Windows 3.1 was a major upgrade from v3.0.  MS-DOS 5.0 was released at the
same time and was developed with some Windows integration in mind.  The
Microsoft Office family appeared and started the application "suite" craze.
Windows 3.1 was still a glorified program launcher for the under-lying DOS
OS, but it now had a complete programming environment to allow program
developers the ability to build feature-rich GUI-based applications.
Windows 3.11, and Windows for Workgroups v3.11 were the last "upgrades" to
Windows 3.x.
>
> After v3.1 was released and before v3.11, Microsoft released a completely
different flavor of Windows called "New Technology" or NT.  Windows NT 3.1
was the first version and it incorporated many of the GUI features of Win31,
but in a completelyGUI environment...there was no underlying "DOS",
so-to-speak.  It was also a full 32-bit OS and utilized 32-bit instructions
that took advantage of the 80386 instruction set.  It incorporated the
general "look and feel" of Windows 3.1, but was much more robust and
reliable (aka crash proof).  Ah, but this robustness and reliability came at
a cost...programs needed to be written to the 32-bit NT programming model in
order to run.  DOS apps, apps that used old 16-bit DOS calls, apps that
directly accessed hardware, would not work uner Win NT due to it's "security
ring" model.  16-bit Windows apps would work if they used pure Windows
calls, but many also used 16-bit DOS calls and compatibility was an issue.
So, WinNT never gained favor with the typical home user who still had all
the games and DOS apps that they loved so much.  NT was great for software
developers though since apps under test would only blow-up it's own session
and the OS would continue to run.
>
> Win95 was the first attempt by Microsoft to try to meld the two disparrent
OS' together.  It incorporated NT's 32-bit model and kept Win3.1's 16-bit
legacy support.  Not all WinNT or Win3.1x apps worked under Win95, but many
did.  Most Win3.1x apps worked without modification.  Alas, Win95 was still
a glorified program launcher as there was still an under-lying DOS structure
(unofficially, MS-DOS 7.0).  But, by now, most software companies had some
Windows programming experience and were willing to write future apps for
this new GUI environment.  WAE's were gone and GPF's (or worse, the BSOD)
replaced them.  The Mac OS finally had some competition in the GUI market.
>
> Windows NT 4.0 came out a short time later and incorporated the
look-and-feel of Win95, but kept the 32-bit kernel NT was known for.  As
such, it was less compatible with off-the-shelf software, but much more
robust and reliable.  It was marketed towards business and server uses where
programs didn't need direct access to hardware and higher security was
required.  Because of it's speed and pre-emptive nature, it found a niche in
video editing, CAD, and server markets.
>
> Windows 98 came out a couple of years later and improved on Win95.  It
added better network support, a refined look-and-feel, improved
multi-tasking, and many fixes, but it was still based on an under-lying DOS
structure.  As such, it kept compatibility with old DOS apps and many 16-bit
Windows apps.  This also meant that it did not have the security features or
robustness of Windows NT.  Win98SE (Second Edition) was released a year
later and fixed many bugs, added several networking features, and filled the
gap while everyone was waiting for Windows NT v5.0.  SE is much preferred
over the original release (and, in my opinion, much preferred over Windows
ME)
>
> Windows 2000 was the next evolution of Windows NT.  It had the
look-and-feel of Windows 98, the robustness of WinNT, and, unfortunately,
the compatibility issues of both.  Many found that Windows 2000 didn't like
many of the apps written for Win9x or WinNT.  Luckily, most software
developers released Windows 2000 versions of their software, but, of course,
at a cost.  Sales of Win2K were good, but would have been better if
compatibility wasn't an issue.  Included with Win2K was support for DirectX
and this made gamers happy as they could now have a robust NT type
environment without sacrificing gaming ability.  Alas, being an NT-type OS,
there is no under-lying DOS and many DOS-based apps will not run in Windows
2000.  Also, direct access to the I/O ports were still locked down by the NT
security model and apps that needed direct access to a port (such as rig
controlling software or CW keying programs) would not work.  There are
work-arounds, but the app needs to be re-written to utilize the work-around.
But, over-all, Windows 2000 was a GIANT step in the right direction.  Robust
and fairly crash-proof with a fair amount of backwards compatibility.
>
> Windows ME came out next and was a bit unexpected.  Win2K was supposed to
be the melding point of Win9x and WinNT technologies.  But, somewere along
the way, Microsoft probably figured out that Win2K wouldn't quite do it and
they needed something to replace the aging Win98SE.  So, take Win98SE,
re-write it to remove the under-lying DOS structure, add some WinNT-type
robustness, and quickly release it to market as an operating system for
"Home" use.  What a joke.  WinME broke many of the things that were working
fine in Win9x, killed DOS compatibility, and had none of the robust
crash-proof features of WinNT.  In the industry, the general concensus is to
completely forget ME and stick with 98SE or move to Win2K.  On top of that,
since it was released *after* Win2K, there is no upgrade path from WinME to
Win2K even though Win2K is a "higher-end" operating system.  In fact, if you
try to run the Win2K installation on a WinME system, you'll get an error
stating that it's not possible to upgrade from ME to 2K.  In short, avoid
it.
>
> WinXP is the next evolution and is the first to officially meld 9x and NT
techologies.  Of course, it does so with two different flavors...Home and
Professional.  Both are built on the same NT-style kernel, but are marketed
at different audiences.  Home edition adds additional features for home
users.  Professional is for business and apps developers who need a highly
secure and most robust "crash-proof" environment.  I haven't used it yet,
but it's supposed to be more compatible with older apps than Win2K and much
faster.  Of course, CPU's are also faster today and XP requires a faster CPU
so it's hard to say that the OS is the reason XP is faster.  I'm still
getting mixed reports on compatibility, so it's hard to say if moving to XP
is justified for the typical home user (unless you're unfortunate enough to
be using WinME).
>
> So, what does all this drabble mean???  In my opinion, most HAM's should
stick to Win98SE.  It has the best compatibility to performance ratio.  Does
that mean that Win95 and 98 first edition users should "upgrade" to 98SE?
I'd recommend it just for the bug fixes, but I also preach "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it".  I still use Win98SE at home and don't plan on
changing soon.  If your PC needs don't include a lot of backwards
compatibility, Windows 2000 w/SP2 is the way to go.  Robust and fairly
crash-proof.  XP is just bloat-ware in my opinion and will be slower than
Win2K on my computer.  Besides, I don't want to spend all the extra $$$
upgrading all my apps to work with Win2K or XP.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.342 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 3/14/02