In this case, I’m looking at the ultra popular Sim series, and their Windows releases. While I was a big fan of SimCity, especially having played it on an Amiga, when I found out that there was a Commodore 64 version I had bought it immediately as I wanted to play it at home. And let me tell you, it was a severely underwhelming experience.
From the logo it’s all down hill. I know that SimCity is actually from 1985, and as the first version, the Commodore 64 version is basically the prototype.
Which was just graphically underwhelming, but I still played the hell out of it. And then I saw the Spectrum 48k version. Yes the blocks are ‘buildings’ as the units fill up they will turn into black with only the letter remaining. Despite the ultra minimal graphics, the game play is there. And once you get used to the bizarre combination keyboard+joystick controls it is addictive. I mean it is SimCity!
But going to the PC, I kind of grew out of SimCity. DooM was the hot game, and the whole immersive 3d thing. And of course during that era being on the PC I only knew of the MS-DOS version. While there was a version for OS/2 Warp released much much later, and by then if I felt the urge there was SimCity 2000 for Windows.
But after getting the kick for SimEarth, and finding the Windows 3.0 version, I was much surprised to find out that there was a version of SimCity of Windows 3.0 as well!
And I can see why I never had seen this for retail, or knew anyone who had it.
That’s right in the included form, the price was $59.95. And SimEarth was $69.95! To put that in perspective that would be now $107.17, and $125.04 respectively. And people think $60 for a game today is expensive!
To get the full experience I went ahead and loaded up PCem, with a 386 and EGA graphics to get that original feel.
Since this requires Windows 3.0, with either EGA or VGA graphics, and 2MB of RAM, I figured I would go with a ‘top of the line’ souped up 386DX. I tried to load it up with the Wyse700 driver, and the game fails to load resources. I don’t know if its even possible to make black and white or four colour resources, as I live in the future, and I have millions of colours!
That said, I tested and it has no issues with 8bit depths either.
Installation is pretty smooth, the game is shipped on either two 360k 5 1/4″ diskettes, or a single 720kb diskette. While modern games have so much more, there is many things this game is lacking. But Maxine isn’t one of them.
No really, she is listed as a feature.
The music is through the PC speaker. Just like the sound effects. Multimedia integration with Windows that we take for granted today just wasn’t a thing back then. The version I have is 1.0, Although a pirated version 1.1 that was sent in actually includes WAV sound effects, and a single midi track. However it doesn’t run on Windows 3.0. So lucky me!
Ah the UAE, the bane of Windows 3.0. They were so unpopular that Microsoft had to rename the dialog.
Living in the constraints of EGA feel absolutely claustrophobic in today’s world. 640×350 just isn’t enough screen rel estate. Even 640×480 is far far too small. And that lead to one issue I found
While using a SVGA driver so I can get that impossible to afford experience of 1280×1024 in 256 colours, but the application was never meant to run in something that wide. You can easily put child windows ‘behind’ the dead space, and you can never recover them. You have to save and re-launch. bummer.
If any application failed to run on Windows 95, I took it as a personal failure. I spent many sleepless nights fixing bugs in third-party programs just so they could keep running on Windows 95. (Games were the worst. Often the game vendor didn’t even care that their program didn’t run on Windows 95!)
Yes, they basically knew it had problems. In the box they even had this cute flyer:
And yes, rest assured it actually does work. It even works on Windows 3.00a under Citrix MULTIUSER 2.0. Pointless as there is no way to have remote graphical displays but nice to see it work.
So what went wrong? Where was all the follow up games for Windows? Obviously the hardware needed was incredibly expensive. A 386 or even a 286 with a few megabytes of RAM was expensive. VGA or EGA monitors were also very expensive. Even mice were expensive! Putting together a low end PC basically barred you from this high end premier experience. I can’t imagine that Maxis sold many copies of this. As mentioned above I’m pretty sure there is a reason why I never saw this in the wild.
Spending $3000 in early 1992, which is $5197.95 in today’s money. I can’t even begin to imagine spending over $5,000 to play a game. It’s no wonder when older machines show up on eBay people want far too much for them.
In a strange way I like to watch SimCity animate in the background. It’s like a fish tank, or staring out into a busy street. With the advantage that I can summon a giant lizard to destroy it at my whim.
Well from popular request I finally got around to loading this up. I went ahead with my favourite retro emulator, PCem for this, as it can nicely emulate an EGA display, unlike most emulators which do VGA, however when it comes to older versions of Microsoft products they really can detect the difference between EGA and VGA.
So to start off, I downloaded from the project page, this version of PCem, compiled it, and installed MS-DOS 4.01 , from April of 1989. The Windows 3.0 Debug Release 1.14 itself is dated from February 22nd, 1989. Which I figured is close enough to the time period. I’m using the 486SX2/50 because I’m too impatient for the 386 speeds, but it does work fine on 386 or higher emulators. It does NOT work with any 286 emulation. I’m also using the HIMEM.SYS from MS-DOS 4.01 vs the one with the Windows 3.0 (Alpha? Beta? Technical Preview?) since it is slightly newer.
There is no setup program per say, rather it just xcopies all the files to a directory, and from there you run ‘d.bat’ and away you go. This version is hard coded to an EGA display, which again is the reason I went with PCem. Once you start it up, you are greeted with:
And it identifies itself as Windows Version 2.1
And first thing to notice is that on my setup with 8MB of ram, I have over 6MB of RAM free. Compare this to regular Windows 2.1 which gives me 399Kb of ram in my current setup.
And with Windows/386 Version 2.1 it provides 383Kb of real memory, along with 6.7MB of EMS memory, as the Windows/386 Hypervisor includes EMS emulation.
Of course the major limitation of Windows 2 is that it runs in real mode, or in the case of Windows/386 an 8086VM. As I mentioned a while back in a post about Windows 3.0, This was game changing.
As now with Windows running in protected mode, all the memory in my PC is available to Windows, and I am using MS-DOS, with nothing special.
Besides the limitation of being EGA only, the Debug version of 3.0 is that there is no support for MS-DOS applications, as WINOLDAP.MOD is missing.
This is clearly an interim build of Windows 3.0 as mentioned in Murray Sargent’s MSDN blog Saving Windows from the OS/2 Bulldozer. As mentioned from the article they began their work in the summer of 1988, so considering this is early 1989 it shows just how much progress they had made in getting Windows 2 to run in protected mode. Along with Larry Osterman’s MSDN blog post Farewell to one of the great ones, which details how the Windows 3.0 skunkworks project was writing the new improved 386 hypervisor, and how Windows 3.0 got the green light, and changed the direction of not only Microsoft but the entire software industry.
I’ve been able to run most of the Windows 2.1 applets, however I’ve not been able to run Excel 2, or Word 1. I suspect at this point that only small memory model stuff from Windows 1 or 2 is capable of running. Although at the same time, when 3.0 did ship, you really needed updated versions of Word 2 and Excel 3 to operate correctly.
The applets from Windows 2.1 seem to work a LOT better than the one from Windows/386 2.1 if that helps any.
This is an interesting peek at an exceptionally early build of Microsoft Windows.
I still remember when Windows 3.1 was announced, and there was all the excitement in our programming class as Windows 3.1 was going to change everything. One kid had already gotten it on launch and was all excited as it supported more resources, had better fonts for printing, and included multimedia support! The teacher was all excited about it too, as at the time everyone loved Windows 3.0 but only if it could do more in terms of being able to run more reliably, and support more things at once.
Later, I found out later that this lucky kid had a 386 with 8MB of ram, a full MIDI setup and VGA graphics, which of course blew away my glorious 80286-16 with 1MB of ram, a 20MB hard disk (with stacker!), and CGA. Needless to say wing commander was actually playable on his computer.
There was no denying it, Windows 3.0 had started the shift from an exclusively MS-DOS world, in which everyone was hoping and searching for a graphical way out of, to the world of Windows we know today. Windows 3.0 established the beached, and Windows 3.1 basically won the war.
Visually Windows 3.0 and 3.1 look very similar, but Windows 3.1 builds on Windows 3.0’s success and adds in some very important technologies, not limited to:
The only ‘down’ side that I was aware of is that Windows 3.1 dropped support for IBM PC/XT’s. You needed an 80286 processor as Windows 3.1 ran in protected mode, which at the time it only shut out one person that I knew of. However he was just a new motherboard away from being able to run Windows 3.1 . Which is another point against OS/2 as Windows 3.1 used the PC BIOS for almost all hardware access, even a 286 with mostly XT guts would work, but sadly even XT’s with Intel inboard 386’s were not supported, however AT’s with inboard 386’s were. Even Microsoft MACH 20 card owners were restricted to Windows 3.0 standard mode (after some extensive updates). Also was there ever a special version of OS/2, like how the box claims?
While many of these things seem obvious now, back then this was a big thing to include so many technologies into Windows, and the more compelling the technology people were starting to replace their MS-DOS applications with windows ones, and the ‘dream’ of spending more and more time in Windows was starting to happen. Although for many of us this ‘dream’ was a freaking nightmare as more applications would install and overwrite system libraries, and end up with massive system instabilities. Not to mention the DLL hell that many of us still face, as even side-by-side and .net only save us from some things, even though nothing is ever perfect.
Windows 3.1 also saw the PC world transition from 16bit to 32bit with the shift of users from 80286 based computers to 80386 and 80486 based machines. With the split from IBM with OS/2 2.0, Microsoft was pressed to keep Windows 3.1 relevant to the 32bit crowd, and there was plenty of addons for Windows 3.1 to keep things going. Namely:
Video for Windows
I don’t think Winmem32 ever took off, as it really was just a way to allocate larger memory segments, I’m almost positive that Watcom’s Windows Extender was more popular. Naturally these predate the ever popular Win32s, which I’ve covered before. WING was the fast video for games that I’ve covered once more again, with WinDoom. But I’ll just state it again, that Win32s was very important for bringing the whole ‘internet’ experience to mere users as almost everything that was TCP/IP based was 32bit for the ‘rest of the world’ and Win32s brought a taste of real 32bit computing to the masses, esp for people using Mosiac and Netscape.
Winvideo was Microsoft’s answer to the ever popular Quicktime. Not to mention this add on was to solidify Windows 3.1 as a multimedia powerhouse. Microsoft still to this day has the test avi’s available for download here, And thanks to the University of British Columbia, you can download the Video for Windows Runtime here.
Needless to say the open standard of how the Winsock DLL should work helped standardize internet applications early, esp while there were multiple competing stacks for both MS-DOS and Windows. Ultimatley when Microsoft wrote their own it pretty much took over everything, but seeing a chance to sell another version of Windows “Windows 3.11 for workgroups” was later released, which could be extended with MS’s TCP/IP. At the end there even was a version of IE 5 for Windows 3.1, that I remember being as somewhat poor, and even NT 3.51 users were pushed into that direction. Not to mention it had a tendency to not want to install on machines with more than 16MB of ram. I suppose the good thing is that IE 5 (probably 3 & 4 as well) came with PPP dialers, which was good enough for the majority of users. Microsoft even made its improved Media player 5 (beta 2), and Net Show players available for 3.1, although I’ve never used them. “Good” IE releases didn’t come until 95/NT 4.0 anyways, the retrofitted ones were just unstable and lacking.
ODBC was a major selling feature in the world of databases, as now you could write uniform code to access data from all kinds of data sources. Imagine if you had old dbase files, and a SQL database, it would be a major pain to tie them together. However programs like Access which used ODBC could quickly and easily talk to multiple data sources, and create data reporting and entry systems. This is how the business world got hooked on Access & Visual Basic. ODBC typically came with either database programs, or with database driver disks, like the one for SQL Server.
While Windows was becoming more and more useful, users were going insane, clamoring for a full 32bit version, which led us down the ‘short’ road to Chicago, which was originally expected some time in 1993, but instead didn’t ship until August of 1995. Windows NT 3.1 was another contender, but again it didn’t ship until March of 1993, and it was far too resource hungry for anything serious. This left a gap for OS/2 to fill, and around the shipping time of Windows 3.1 was OS/2 2.0 which only included a runtime version of Windows 3.0 . Lots of people feel that the additional features to 3.0 could have been delivered via a patch, but the 3.1 release was to purposely make OS/2 2.0 obsolete right after it had been released. Even OS/2 2.1 didn’t ship until May of 1993, although it was always locked into a race with Microsoft as various add-ons would either break OS/2 for Windows requiring updates to OS/2 or even sometimes entire new releases (Warp 3.0 for Win32s for example..)
What also made Windows 3.1 popular was the so called “Microsoft Tax” where Microsoft would sell to OEM’s copies of MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 at an incredibly low price with the condition that they resell them with *EVERY* PC that they sold. This of course was annoying to UNIX users, even NT users as they all had copies of MS-DOS & Windows 3.1 that they never needed, nor wanted. But this strategy was pretty successful at locking out not only OS/2 from being preloaded & configured on systems, but pretty much any hope of competition. Many people attempted to sue, and only Digital Research managed to get anything out of it, as there excellent DR-DOS product was effectively barred from the market (very few end users ever change operating systems, they typically buy new PC’s its always been that way, upgrade sales lag way behind new sales), but by the time the courts had done what they were going to do the damage had been done.
Another typical bundle was Microsoft Office. Microsoft took advantage of Lotus’s failure in the market place to deliver a graphical application (The OS/2 switch doesn’t matter, Lotus still released a text mode app in the OS/2 heyday), combined with 1-2-3’s heft price tag, Microsoft made Word, Excel, PowerPoint and their Mail product available for less than the price of 1-2-3 with a new PC.
In the end it all comes down to developers. Something that some companies still struggle with, esp those that positioned themselves in an OS/2 type fix. If your native tools are too expensive, too restricted, nobody will write for you, esp if you can run other peoples applications better than the native platform. And this was not only the cause of the ‘why bother’ with OS/2 native applications, but even today you can see it with RIM and their QNX based products that run Android applications. Combine this with other low cost compilers from Borland and it really is no wonder why everyone was programming for Windows, esp the cost of Windows was typically cheaper than licensing a single seat for any DOS Extender that required royalties. How much of this was due to Microsoft brilliance, or the competition being bent on short term greed, it is hard to say, but IBM wasn’t taking out full page ads trying to court developers with cheap access, but rather you had to phone them up, go through some IVR’s and be ready to charge a few thousand dollars for the honor of developing for OS/2. I still remember Watcom C/C++ 10.0 being the cheapest way to build for everything, its a shame in a way that their SQL product was so good, as Sybase snapped up Watcom, and pretty much killed the languages, but thankfully not before open sourcing them.
With high resolution, and color depth displays, audio cards, multimedia games like “Monty Python’s quest for the holy grail” started to appear for Windows, as programmers could now concentrate on content, as Windows provided the layer for audio/video abstraction. While some games worked great others did not as there was a performance gap from raw MS-DOS to Windows, but tech like WinG was closing the gap. Not to mention the device driver patch hell was being shifted from the game devs to the hardware vendors, although that race still goes on, as even today Steam still combats older drivers and tries to hand hold users into updating them.
Even the horrible shell saw some competition for improvement, there was the Workplace shell for Windows 3.1, and of course BOB. And boy were people so happy with BOB. Not to mention thinking that this was just some great tech, it made its way into Office, to be forever remembered as Clippy in Office 97, who was tuned down in 2000 and killed in Office 2003. Its funny how future looking movies always go on about these animated seemingly helpful digital assistants, and yet in the real world they usually are the first thing turned off. I even remember the whole “Chrysler New Yorker’ debacle back in the day. Even in the show room it just went endlessly on about the door being a jar. Maybe its just HAL-9000 backlash.
So what can be said of Windows 3.1? It still lingers in 32bit versions of Windows 7 (Wow! or Windows on windows), and it basically tipped the world into the Win-centric place we are today, along with the office everywhere mentality. I can’t even imagine giving someone a 1-2-3 wks file, let alone a Word Perfect document, as I’m pretty sure there are no translators anymore. Oddly enough Win64 based OS’s can’t directly run Win16 based programs, there is always emulation.
While one may think that Windows 2.x started with the ‘regular’ version, it does indeed turn out that rather the 386 specific version was rushed out the door to appease Compaq, and their new Desqpro 386 computer, namely the 20Mhz 386 model that was going to debut in late 1987. Indeed, Compaq not only set the standard with the 386 CPU, but they were going to set the future standard of bundling not only MS-DOS but Microsoft Windows. At this moment in 1987 you could really say that the ‘modern pc market’ was born.
And it does make perfect sense, with 386 specific software being very rare/hard to come by, keeping in mind that Phar lap 386 was only announced in December of 1986! But it was expensive, and 386 specific applications cost a fortune, and didn’t have wide market penetration (we were still years away from DOS4G/W or GCC).
Another thing to keep in mind is that OS/2 had not shipped either at this point, and apparently this version of Windows/386 would not even support the IBM PS/2 model 80, as there was some noise about IBM not wanting to bundle Windows on their computers. Now when you think about it, it is kind of funny that Windows an inferior product came out with a GUI and multitasking MS-DOS via the 386’s v86 mode, while OS/2 was still in a beta stage. Not to mention IBM’s reluctance to bundle Windows/386 shows just how the Windows rift was an issue even back in 1987!
And it’s no wonder why this was going to be a hit. And the UI looks just like how Presentation Manager for OS/2 1.1 was going to look, almost a full year before OS/2 1.1 was delivered (Halloween 1988!)
Now trying to peg down exactly When these releases of Windows 2.x were, esp with Windows/386 2.01 being the first, in September of 1987.
From what I can work out, Windows 2.01 ‘regular’ was shipped around November of 1987, with the 2.1 update in July of 1988, and 2.11 in March of 1989.
While on the topic of Windows 2, there was one slightly interesting feature, of the ‘regular’ or ‘286’ version of this product. It could multitask MS-DOS. No really, but it was all out of the same conventional memory space. So unless you were into COM programs it wasn’t terribly useful.
The later 286 versions included early himem.sys drivers that permitted some trickery with the A-20 gate allowing an additional 64kb of ram to be accessed from real mode. It may be a good thing that nobody found out about unreal mode at the time..!
I don’t know if it is even possible to tell them apart, besides the 386 and 286 (regular) versions but here is a small gallery of Windows 2.0 running command.com
Included is something special for the 2 or 3 people that’ll figure it out. 🙂