Hate Windows 2000?

bvd

Gasbag
Joined
Jun 13, 2001
Messages
188
Location
Lynchburg, VA
Well, then perhaps you're using the wrong version <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0> I envisaged this notion this morning when asked to clean a slew of bathroom urinals:

"I wonder if I could run Windows 1.x on my hard-drive, especially in a Windows 95 DOS-box ..."

Tonight, after a minute-long search, I found everything I needed: a single Zip file containing the equivalent of five installation disks. Installing and running the version was troublesome and entailed a bit of DOS savoir-faire, but ultimately I had Windows 1.01 up and running (and was dutifully laughing my ass off).

Click here to get it.

First, let me state that any damage that Windows 1.01 may do to your system is neither the responsibility of that website nor myself (albeit I encountered no problems). Also, the program's Copyright has LONG expired, and Microsoft has declined to renew it. That said, here are step-by-step instructions (assuming you are running a machine with Windows 9.x):

Unzip the file to an arbitrary directory, I.E. "C:\WIN101S".

Open the MS-DOS Prompt.

Enter "SETVER WIN100.BIN 3.31". This tells "Windows" that a compatible version of MS-DOS is present, as it wouldn't recognize a later one, I.E. 7.0 and 8.0. IMPORTANT NOTE: "SETVER.EXE" -->MUST<-- be present in a directory included in the PATH environment setting. "C:\WINDOWS", where you normally find it, will do fine.

Edit CONFIG.SYS with a generic editor, I.E. notepad. Make sure that the line "DEVICE=DRIVE:\PATH\SETVER.EXE" is present. If not, then add it. Reiteration: it's usually found in the WINDOWS directory.

Reboot.

The next step depends upon where you unzipped the installation disks. At the MS-DOS Prompt, type "SUBST A: DRIVE:\PATH\", or in my case, "SUBST A: C:\WIN101S\". Since the setup automatically reads from A:, we had to improvise.

Type "A:".

Run "SETUP.EXE". Make sure it's maximized (not running in a window), lest Windows crash when specifying a mouse.

Install to any directory you please, BUT NOT THE DEFAULT WINDOWS DIRECTORY ("C:\WINDOWS"), or it will overwrite your existing version. Believe me, this is hardly an improvement.

Be sure to select an EGA (cutting edge <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>) display.

Do not establish a printing device; I'm not sure what Setup will do ... <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0>

After Setup is complete, you’re in the new Windows directory. Run "WIN.COM". You’re introduced to an ugly startup screen, and afterwards the "MS-DOS Executive", a File-Manager type program that allows you to skin over the contents of your hard-drive. It is recommended that you disable Win 9x shortcut keys.

Have fun! Here are screenshots:

<IMG SRC="http://pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/w101logo.gif" border=0>

Wow! CGA startup screen!

<IMG SRC="http://pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/w101dialog.gif" border=0>

A slew of worthwhile programs!

<IMG SRC="http://pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/win98joke.gif" border=0>

Hmmm ... Windows 98 running:
Windows 1.01 MS-DOS executive
Windows 2.x MS-DOS executive
Windows 3.0 program manager

The underlying dictum: Initially, Windows was not a worthwhile operating system, and to this day its shortcomings remain unfixed. For example, the original Notepad could only open 16K files. Using Microsoft's latest OS, it can get as high as, oh, roughly 60K. The original was first announced in 1983, the year the Apple Lisa (a far better) GUI became popular, and not released until 1985. If I was a consumer at the time, I'd see no motivation to impel me to buy it; after all, it supported very few third-party programs. We begin to see how dutiful consumers get short-changed by a Monopoly.

Also available:
Another Windows 1.01 link.
Windows 2.03 (Russian link).
Windows 3.0a.
Cool site.

Note: I still have my Windows 3.0 diskettes -- but, as disks normally have a shelf-life of 5 years, they are corrupt.


[This message has been edited by bvd (edited July 23, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by bvd (edited July 23, 2001).]
 
That is so kick ass! It makes me want to go over to my father's place and grab the old 386 with windows 3.0 on it. I wouldn't do it on my computer though, I aint that brave.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">I take every day one beer at a time; every beer one sip at a time.</FONT c>
 
aaah, 1984. Apple's first Lisa PC. Then the Macintosh. Then MacOS 1. Then several years after, Winblow 1.0. I still have a very old macintosh (equivalent of a 286 @ 8Mhz!) and this is still working well. NOstalgy.... And I managed to run a PC emulator on this Mac, that ran DR-DOS (Digital Research) 6, using QEMM. But at least DOS and Win 1.0 were stable and Bill didn't rule the world yet, the other Bill didn't have Monica problem yet, etc etc... It was the good old time...
 
GenghisK - you wouldn't by any chance have any screenshots of Digital Research's DOS? Their GUI, "GEM", got embroiled in legal trouble with Macintosh because of the desktop feature parity. Click here to found out more.

(ironic, since Caldera, owner of DR DOS, later sued Microsoft)

From what I heard, DR DOS is ideal for memory management - and is very cheap; Digital Research relinquished it after being stymied by Microsoft and Caldera ( www.caldera.com ) adopted it. After all, modifying the CONFIG.SYS is such a !@#$ing pain, especially since alot of the graphical programming I do requires EMS pages. I need to enter "device=emm386.exe RAM" and a number of other lines. I am currently using MS Windows 95, and am pensively considering upgrading to "98 Lite", which is in essence MS Windows 98 without Internet Explorer "integrated" into the GUI (so it REPLACES Windows Explorer, thus impeding system performance). Sorry, I'd rather use DOSSHELL (EDLIN is better than MS Word 97, incidentally).

On another note, I don't understand why Windows 1.x won't support my MICROSOFT serial mouse, albeit I know that its Setup options won't accommodate PS/2 mice. Perhaps its because my mouse is "PS/2 Compatible".

[This message has been edited by bvd (edited July 25, 2001).]
 
Back
Top Bottom