Installing This IBM Copy of Windows 3.1 

Ok

I had one of the infamous IBM PS/1's that came with 3.1. It had an office suite called "Microsoft Works" that was, at the time the most hilarious oxymoron.

@@NickDalzell I've used Works from version 2.0 to version 8.5. My dad swore by it. Wasn't bad, but a bit limited.

@@JohnCremboz I always dumped to DOS at the time. I was still quite used to the immense tools and editing of Professional Write, which is all but forgotten today. Professional Write costed upwards of $1,000 and had TONS of features that bested WordPerfect, WordStar, and MS Works. Only downside is it was not a WYSIWYG interface. it used coloured text to indicate formatting instead of showing it bold, italic, etc. The only thing I needed Windows for was America Online, since Prodigy was EOL'ing by that time.

he said in a few videos that hes having trouble withthings so its taking a lot longer

Yeah that’s probably it!

ah yes cant dispay it

Your computer too fast to display it

I posted an easy fix in another comment (which I also posted on a now-defunct forum eons ago.) Just press the Pause key!

Some CRTs I have used also blanked for few seconds when changing the resolution, so getting a CRT is not guaranteed to get rid of the issue.

Lol

lol

loL

Windows only works for PC

@@Matheus-Silva226 no shit sherlock

meh it's not really different, it's just a tilted camera angle.

@@WindowsXP2600 It may be just a different camera angle, but a little tweak like that goes a long way. Now, we can see a few old Windows versions on standby, which would probably make it a lot more obvious to a first-time viewer that this channel is about retro tech, gives them a better idea of what it's about, plus it looks a little more vibrant and colorful than his beige wallpaper.

IBM had special rights with Windows 3.x which they didn't have with Windows 95. A brief history: (1) Microsoft buys DOS from SCP and signs with IBM to develop MS-DOS (aka PC-DOS) for the IBM PC. They also retain rights to DOS and offer it to makers of PC clones, although IBM does have rights to modify the code as well. (2) Microsoft starts developing Windows a few years later. They also agree to develop the next operating system for the PC which is later called OS/2. Windows was created primarily to create a GUI for DOS, OS/2 was developed to take advantage of newer Intel chips which allowed multitasking. (3) A few years go by and both Windows and OS/2 struggle in the marketplace. In spite of different initial design goals, Windows and OS/2 start being seen as competing products. The 2 companies have an uneasy agreement where Windows is seen as a temporary product while OS/2 is seen as the future. And so inevitably, Microsoft uses some of the technology it used to develop OS/2 in Windows. They also used some of IBM's expertise to help develop Windows. And so it all becomes muddied between Windows and OS/2 and Microsoft and IBM. (4) Windows 3.0 comes out and becomes a huge success and IBM tells Microsoft to kill Windows and fold it into OS/2. Bill Gates tells Big Blue to take a hike, but eventually the divorce settlement looks like this: * IBM retains the rights to develop OS/2 2.x. I believe Microsoft also had the rights to use OS/2 2.x code, but never used it. There was an interesting lost beta product found a few weeks ago of MS OS/2 2.0 which I would love to see MJD make a video of if he ever got a copy of it. This was released right after Windows 3.0 was released. * Microsoft retained the rights to develop OS/2 3.x although Dave Cutler the project manager quickly turned it into Windows NT and pretty much started writing new code. * Both companies have the right to use source code from OS/2 1.x how ever they please. IBM of course used it to develop OS/2 2.0. Microsoft strangely enough allowed you to run OS/2 1.x text apps under the OS/2 for Windows subsystem in Windows NT until Windows 2000 although you could run it in Windows 2000 if you had the right files. I've seen information in various places which says you could run OS/2 1.x graphics programs using the Microsoft "Presentation Manager for Windows NT Subsystem", but I'm not sure if that ever came out or was vaporware. * IBM had the rights to develop PC-DOS independent of Microsoft. This included a copy of DOS included with OS/2. * IBM had certain rights to the Windows 3.x source code. They didn't need to ask permission from Microsoft to sell Windows, but they did need to pay them royalties. This is why there was a blue and red spline version of later versions of OS/2- the red spline didn't contain a copy of Windows- you bought it if you already had a copy of Windows and wanted to have OS/2, you could simply install OS/2 and your Windows installation would be patched on the fly. This saved you on having to pay for Windows twice- since the cost of the blue spline edition included royalties to MS. But IBM's rights for Windows source code ended sometime in 1993. They could continue to use Windows 3.x code indefinitely, but any code after '93 they had no rights to. As a matter of fact, IBM was the only large PC maker who didn't have any Windows 95 licenses until minutes before it launched...

MJD: I would love to see you install a copy of the "just found" Microsoft OS/2 2.0!

android studio isn't an emulator, it's the 'preferred' development suite for, with which you can install the emulators(rather emulator images you can then make an emulator config to use an image and choose the resolution, dpi, how many cores, memory etc) and the sdk, but it's better to run the emulator outside of the studio anyway as running it in a window inside android studio sucks majorly for various reasons. you can get images for basically any android version though for it and some images with play store as well. they've made it more casual friendly lately in the sense that you can just drag'n'drop an apk into it and copy pasting text into and out from the emulator should just work(doesn't always). anyway you can also just install the emulators and images without android studio, as is just the most straightforward method at the moment i suppose to install the sdk...