Windows 11 update screwed up checkbox and radiobox size on older dialogs

[tszaboo]

No. Windows was a different OS and API. You couldn't run a DOS app under Windows (except in a DOS box, which wasn't Windows), and you couldn't run a Windows app under DOS. So basically it was dual-OS, dual-UI. Later it didn't need DOS to get going and wound up as we have it now.

The first versions of Windows ran on top of DOS. Windows offered a UI to the user, and an API to programs designed as "Windows programs". Whether that counted as an OS in its own right is a semantic discussion. My instinct is to say that the combination of DOS+Windows was the OS.

Thank goodness that horrible kludge was terminated after Windows Me.

Yes, I think that was up to Windows 3.1 but not in Windows 95. Windows 3.1 didn't even have mutitasking, at least not in the same sense as today, and run on top of DOS. But 95 was already a native OS. At least that's how I remember I was quite young back then.

[Randy222]

The required 64k ram for DOS quickly turned into 4096k to run a window. It's not been a long time since, now you need something like 16G to load a windows OS.
The big mistake for ms, not forking the OS into a headless OS and a Windows GUI OS.

[SteveThackery]

But 95 was already a native OS. At least that's how I remember I was quite young back then.

I was already middle-aged. 😅

The DOS-based Windows was developed through various releases. Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me (Millennium Edition) were all DOS-based, with Me being the final version of that architecture.

In parallel ran the NT development stream: NT 3.x, NT 4. 0, and Windows 2000.

In 2001 Windows XP was launched. It was the next version in the NT development stream after Windows 2000, but it was also intended to be an upgrade path from Windows Me. Thus XP acted as the convergence point between the the two streams, although it should be emphasised that it was purely NT (kernel version 5.1) under the hood.

In 2009 the best version of Windows ever* was launched: Windows 7. Since then it's been downhill all the way. 😄

* In my opinion.

[Randy222]

In 2009 the best version of Windows ever* was launched: Windows 7. Since then it's been downhill all the way. 😄

* In my opinion.

It's not a hill, it's a cliff. Yet Microsoft does not care about our opinions. If they make crap, people will be forced to used it because the old OS becomes non-supported. Funny how that works.

[tszaboo]

But 95 was already a native OS. At least that's how I remember I was quite young back then.

I was already middle-aged. 😅

The DOS-based Windows was developed through various releases. Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me (Millennium Edition) were all DOS-based, with Me being the final version of that architecture.

In parallel ran the NT development stream: NT 3.x, NT 4. 0, and Windows 2000.

In 2001 Windows XP was launched. It was the next version in the NT development stream after Windows 2000, but it was also intended to be an upgrade path from Windows Me. Thus XP acted as the convergence point between the the two streams, although it should be emphasised that it was purely NT (kernel version 5.1) under the hood.

In 2009 the best version of Windows ever* was launched: Windows 7. Since then it's been downhill all the way. 😄

* In my opinion.

I agree with windows 7 being the best.
I am lucky, because my windows 11 update is completely broken on my desktop at home. It refuses to work, because some update package wants me to update the Firmware of my SSD. And since I'm not doing that, it left my 11 in a quite usable state about a year or two ago. And I don't get all the vibe coded broken bullshit updates, that try to sell you a onedrive subscription and bloats all the built-in software for no reason.

[SteveThackery]

I agree with windows 7 being the best.
I am lucky, because my windows 11 update is completely broken on my desktop at home. It refuses to work, because some update package wants me to update the Firmware of my SSD. And since I'm not doing that, it left my 11 in a quite usable state about a year or two ago. And I don't get all the vibe coded broken bullshit updates, that try to sell you a onedrive subscription and bloats all the built-in software for no reason.

Even though I moan about W11 a lot, I have to report that I get pretty well none of the difficulties people report. I can only remember one failed update (which I think was maybe 5 years ago), and I can't remember ever experiencing any of the bugs that updates introduce. I haven't used any 3rd party anti-virus/security suites for at least 15 years (a lot more, I seem to think), I haven't had any malware infection ever, and I can't remember the last time I got a BSOD, but I think it must, again, be a good 15 years ago, quite possibly more.

It doesn't sit idle: I use it for video editing, audio editing, software development using RAD Studio, Visual Studio and Arduino, graphics editing using several products, hosting numerous virtual machines, 2D and 3D CAD, various office suites (currently MS Office and SoftMaker Office), technical drawing (with Visio), and all the usual emailing, WhatsApp, Web browsing, etc.  One thing I never do is gaming - no interest in that at all. I simply use it intelligently.

I suspect my experience is not particularly unusual, but of course I don't know that for sure. And I'm sorry for disappointing all the Linux fanboys amongst us, who seem to celebrate every reported difficulty with Windows, as if it is somehow a threat to them.

[Zero999]

I can't stand the mess which is the modern Windows UI. Indeed I'm not much of a fan of other UIs either, but Windows is one of the worst.

I prefer the old bezel/shadowed look where it was obvious which screen elements can be clicked. Unfortunately many designers have regressed to a much older style of UI similar the early GUIs of the 70s and 80s where it's all flat. Not only does it look terrible, but it's a pain in the neck to use.

[SteveThackery]

I can't stand the mess which is the modern Windows UI. Indeed I'm not much of a fan of other UIs either, but Windows is one of the worst.

THIS ^^^^^

I agree completely. For me, the WIMP paradigm peaked with W7.

[Simon]

The first versions of Windows ran on top of DOS. Windows offered a UI to the user, and an API to programs designed as "Windows programs". Whether that counted as an OS in its own right is a semantic discussion. My instinct is to say that the combination of DOS+Windows was the OS.

Thank goodness that horrible kludge was terminated after Windows Me.

Yes, I think that was up to Windows 3.1 but not in Windows 95. Windows 3.1 didn't even have mutitasking, at least not in the same sense as today, and run on top of DOS. But 95 was already a native OS. At least that's how I remember I was quite young back then.

I think the entire 9x windows line ran on dos. My first computer was ME and you could still switch to DOS. It was the windows NT line that was first widely used as windows 2000 that booted straight to windows without going though DOS.

Remember that thing about 1MB of RAM? if you checked how much RAM your windows computer had it would always report 1MB less? that is because it was a DOS throwback from when 1MB was supposed to be so much memory no one bothered designing for anything more, so 99.99% of your RAM was considered extended memory.

[PlainName]

a DOS throwback from when 1MB was supposed to be so much memory no one bothered designing for anything more

It was because the original PC memory map had RAM at the bottom 640K of memory and then the video RAM was at 656K. Problem was thus you couldn't have contiguous RAM past 640K. The video memory was there because the total memory map was 1MB. Should they have allowed for up to 128GB RAM to be useable 50 years later? I think, given the time and target requirements, the full 1MB allowed by the processor was pretty reasonable.

[Zero999]

The first versions of Windows ran on top of DOS. Windows offered a UI to the user, and an API to programs designed as "Windows programs". Whether that counted as an OS in its own right is a semantic discussion. My instinct is to say that the combination of DOS+Windows was the OS.

Thank goodness that horrible kludge was terminated after Windows Me.

Yes, I think that was up to Windows 3.1 but not in Windows 95. Windows 3.1 didn't even have mutitasking, at least not in the same sense as today, and run on top of DOS. But 95 was already a native OS. At least that's how I remember I was quite young back then.

I think the entire 9x windows line ran on dos. My first computer was ME and you could still switch to DOS. It was the windows NT line that was first widely used as windows 2000 that booted straight to windows without going though DOS.

Remember that thing about 1MB of RAM? if you checked how much RAM your windows computer had it would always report 1MB less? that is because it was a DOS throwback from when 1MB was supposed to be so much memory no one bothered designing for anything more, so 99.99% of your RAM was considered extended memory.

Yes, Windows ME and before had to run on DOS. It's true that Windows called fewer DOS routines as it progressed, but it had to run on DOS up to ME. Windows 2000 and XP) and beyond used a completely different kernel known as NT. The reason why it took so long to drop DOS was to preserve backwards compatibility with old software and NT required more memory to run.

The old 1MB limit dates back to the original 16-bit 8086 processor which had a 20-bit address bus, which limited the maximum amount of RAM to 1MB. Later extended memory was introduced, but in 16-bit mode, all executable code had to be stored within 1MB, so larger programs had to bank switch code from extended memory which made it slow.

Before Windows 95, Windows was a 16-bit operating system. Some DOS programs, especially games used what is known as a DOS extender which switched the CPU to 32-bit protected mode allowing a theoretical 4GB of memory to be addressed as a contiguous block, which meant it could faster, although it would still have to switch back to 16-bit real mode for DOS file access operations. Windows 95 switched the CPU to 32-bit mode and also used 32-bit routines for disk and file access, which again theoretically speeded it up further because it didn't need to switch to slow 16-bit mode so often.

[Simon]

a DOS throwback from when 1MB was supposed to be so much memory no one bothered designing for anything more

It was because the original PC memory map had RAM at the bottom 640K of memory and then the video RAM was at 656K. Problem was thus you couldn't have contiguous RAM past 640K. The video memory was there because the total memory map was 1MB. Should they have allowed for up to 128GB RAM to be useable 50 years later? I think, given the time and target requirements, the full 1MB allowed by the processor was pretty reasonable.

What I meant was that this was a tell tale sign that all OSes up to ME ran on the same common thing, DOS. I believe Bill Gates once declared that 640K was all they would ever need, then came windows.

[tooki]

From what I can find, MAC sales are in decline for a few years now, possibly longer.
Granted, a yearly decline on just MAC is not the big picture of things, because during this same timeframe the overall "pc" sales is in decline.
However, the net diff is MAC decline is more than the other PC sellers that are not MAC machines.

https://www.tomshardware.com/software/macos/sales-of-macs-down-34-year-over-year-but-apple-is-optimistic

If you look at the long-term chart, below, what you see is that a few years ago, there was a huge spike in sales, and that we’ve now returned to the “regular” trajectory. (From https://businesstats.com/apples-revenue-from-macintosh-computers-since-first-quarter-2006/ )

P.S. “Mac” is short for “Macintosh” and is not an initialism. MAC = media access control, i.e. Ethernet hardware addressing.

[themadhippy]

. Should they have allowed for up to 128GB RAM to be useable 50 years later? I think, given the time and target requirements, the full 1MB allowed by the processor was pretty reasonable.

But then us old dossers would have missed out on the fun of tweaking our config.sys and autoexec.bat files to get enough base memory to run the latest game.

[PlainName]

a DOS throwback from when 1MB was supposed to be so much memory no one bothered designing for anything more

It was because the original PC memory map had RAM at the bottom 640K of memory and then the video RAM was at 656K. Problem was thus you couldn't have contiguous RAM past 640K. The video memory was there because the total memory map was 1MB. Should they have allowed for up to 128GB RAM to be useable 50 years later? I think, given the time and target requirements, the full 1MB allowed by the processor was pretty reasonable.

What I meant was that this was a tell tale sign that all OSes up to ME ran on the same common thing, DOS. I believe Bill Gates once declared that 640K was all they would ever need, then came windows.

Nope. What he actually said was:

“When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory”

Quote reported in April 29, 1985 issue of Infoworld.