New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Windows 1.0: The flop that created an empire

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In the beginning....


(Credit:
Screenshot by Remember the dot)

The big story in The New York Times on November 20, 1985, concerned Hurricane Kate's advance as it smashed into northern Cuba and the Florida Keys before barreling north to threaten the Gulf Coast. But another big story -- for the technology world -- was about to unfold thousands of miles away in Las Vegas, where the Comdex trade show was getting under way.

Apple had grabbed headlines a year earlier with the introduction of its graphical Macintosh. Now, after two years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised Microsoft Windows.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Ford's Edsel arguably received better reviews.

Computer reviewer Erick Sandberg-Diment wrote in his column that "running Windows on a PC with 512K of memory is akin to pouring molasses in the Arctic." That critique was one of many describing the product as an unadulterated flop.

Microsoft Windows 1.0, where it all began (pictures)

1-2 of 13
Scroll Left Scroll Right
This was just a momentary setback for Microsoft, which shrugged off the initial embarrassment. (Tandy Trower, the product manager charged with shipping Windows. 1.0 offers a great write-up here about the history of how the company labored to get things right.) Unfortunately for Microsoft, Windows 2.0 wasn't much better than Windows 1.0. However, by the time the third incarnation of Windows came out, in 1990, Microsoft had a clear winner.

It also caused a rancorous split with longtime partner IBM, which had its hopes on another graphical user operating system for PCs it co-developed with Microsoft called OS/2. But Bill Gates stuck with his vision and Windows became a veritable money machine that would create billions of dollars in wealth for Microsoft and its investors.

To this day, you'll still hear Microsoft critics complain that the various flavors of Windows through the years have never come close to offering the simplicity or elegance of the Mac operating system. (You'll hear a similar refrain from many OS/2 diehards.) I'll leave that one for a bar stool debate. With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, however, this much is clear: Windows 1.0 was a flop. But it also was the embodiment of a technology vision which would create a tech empire.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe