Talk:Windows 1.0

Logo

The Windows logo used in this article is dubious. I've tried Windows 10.1 myself and I never saw this logo (I used virtual machines). The only thing similar to a logo in Windows 1.01 is when you go to the About tab and it shows a 5.25" floppy disc on the far left side of the window. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

See this, the logo in the article is correct. Vacant0 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

windows 1.02

Is there a reason for the exclusion of Windows 1.02 from the system requirements section? FusionSub (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Now added. It is virtually identical to version 1.01, just sold outside of the U.S. and with more localizations. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• Windows 1.0x → Windows 1.0
• Windows 2.0x → Windows 2.0
• Windows 2.1x → Windows 2.1
• Windows 3.1x → Windows 3.1

– Verbatim search result hits for "Windows 1.0(x)":

• Google Search "Windows 1.0x": ~17,500 results
• Google Search "Windows 1.0": ~958,000 results
• Google Books "Windows 1.0x": 91 results
• Google Books "Windows 1.0": 11,200 results
• ProQuest "Windows 1.0x": 8 results (subscription required)
• ProQuest "Windows 1.0": 1,733 results (subscription required)

– Verbatim search hits for "Windows 2.0(x)":

• Google Search "Windows 2.0x": ~4,050 results
• Google Search "Windows 2.0": ~242,000 results
• Google Books "Windows 2.0x": 82 results
• Google Books "Windows 2.0": 23,400 results
• ProQuest "Windows 2.0x": 0 results (subscription required)
• ProQuest "Windows 2.0": 1,472 results (subscription required)

– Verbatim search hits for "Windows 2.1(x)":

• Google Search "Windows 2.1x": ~6,930 results
• Google Search "Windows 2.1": ~130,000 results
• Google Books "Windows 2.1x": 168 results
• Google Books "Windows 2.1": 3,420 results
• ProQuest "Windows 2.1x": 0 results (subscription required)
• ProQuest "Windows 2.1": 312 results (subscription required)

– Verbatim search hits for "Windows 3.1(x)":

• Google Search "Windows 3.1x": ~96,300 results
• Google Search "Windows 3.1": ~5,000,000 results
• Google Books "Windows 3.1x": 10,400 results
• Google Books "Windows 3.1": 565,000 results
• ProQuest "Windows 3.1x": 597 results (subscription required)
• ProQuest "Windows 3.1": 27,961 results (subscription required)

Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Suffixing x to the ends of the version numbers to denote that subversion exist is unnecessary when the vast, vast majority of reliable sources refer to the releases by their common, concise release name, without causing confusion to the reader. Windows 3.11/Windows for Workgroups 3.11, while notable upgrades, are minor revisions compared to the major leaps from 2.1 to 3.0 and from 3.0 to 3.1, and until they have their own articles, Windows 3.1 is a sufficient synecdoche to refer to them. The differences between 1.01–1.04, 2.01–2.03, and 2.1–2.11 are, as far as I can tell, totally minute and not worth the annotation.

Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." These three articles are the only ones that adhere to this practice of suffixing the version number with x to denote subversions. Other version-specific software articles, like Mac OS 9 or Firefox 4, do not adhere to this practice. If I'm wrong, please let me know, but I'm pretty sure this is the case.

Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." I can only speak anecdotally, but I have only ever heard "Windows 3.1" uttered in natural conversation; I have never heard "Windows 3.1 ecks". While readers have no problem finding these articles as they stand now, I think the x is an ugly, unnecessary blemish that only serves to hint that updates to the base release exist, when I think that's implicit to just about anyone who has ever used software—then or now. It might have been relevant to add the x for the periods of time where these operating systems were still supported by Microsoft and other vendors, but this is no longer the case. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support moves. The vast majority of common use omits the x. O.N.R. ^(talk) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note Just added Windows 2.1x to the move discussion, as I had somehow forgot its existence until just now. Oops. Pinging @Old Naval Rooftops:. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. --49.150.0.134 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Windows 1.0

RE: "Reception" sub section

To the first paragraph of RECEPTION section I would add:

Discovery: A users comment from New Zealand

Whilst naysayers judged "Windows 1" as as flop, this system went through our office like a windstorm and productivity leapt. Our office had networked WANG 286 PC's connected to a 386 with a HP laser printer. Six months after installation, we discovered a WANG box of items that had floppy disks labelled Windows 1.03 and nobody knew what the disks were for. In an idle moment, the disks were installed to a 286 PC and chaos ensued - suddenly the PC's 'mono' display became a colour display. This transformation received the immediate attention of the office manager who had walked past and noticed the vivid display colours. Long story short, all the office PC's were soon running Windows and everybody was learning the Windows system, and using the discovered word processor. Word soon spread to other branches in the country that the installed WANG PC's all had colour monitors and could run something called "Windows". Updates were purchased, Excel and Lotus for Windows followed. To summarise, "Windows 1" transformed the office environment forever, despite self appointed purists pouring ice-water on Microsoft's entry to the GUI world. NZDELVER (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)