Talk:Windows 3.0/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Logo (horz).svg

Image:Windows Logo (horz).svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Was it not the launch of Windows 3.1 in 1992 when this logo - used in some way on all subsequent versions up to and including Windows Me, of course - first appeared?

The boxed copy of Win3.0 as shown in the article doesn't feature this logo anywhere on it, and nor does the system's boot screen and About window, as evidenced here:

http://toastytech.com/guis/win30.html

Bluebird207 (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What is this???

I think the article in its current form is a failure, because of the single most fundamental flaw: it does not state what is Windows 3.0.-Ignacio Agulló —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.196.80 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that in these Windows articles (1.0, 2.0., 2.x, etc.), there is a lot of technical information about how they ran and what was required of developers, but there is no discussion of the indroduction of the mouse, and it's support. This was a pretty revolutionary change from DOS. How much support was there for it in these early versions? At what version did it become fully supported and/or required? OS peripheral support provided by the various versions is something that also seems to be lacking in these articles. 198.70.201.220 (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Image needs to be changed / reverted

The image "Win30BoxedCopySoftware.JPG" currently shows the hammerthrower from the Apple 1984 commercial. It appears to have overwritten the original image.

TBennettcc (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fleet Command (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting fact about Windows 3.0

There was a special boxed version of Windows 3.0 developed jointly by Microsoft and Intel. Intel Windows 3.0 for the InBoard 386/PC was a version that was designed to work with the Intel InBoard 386 accelerator cards for the IBM PC and XT-class systems. This version of Windows allowed InBoard users to run Windows 3.0 in 386 Enhanced mode. It wasn't available retail, but could be ordered by people that purchased the InBoard though mail-in. I know this is legitimate because I still own a complete boxed copy and am still running a working copy. The copyright on the installation disks for Intel Windows 3.0 for the InBoard 386/PC is listed as 1990 with a joint Microsoft copyright 1995-1990. The shipping box is labeled 1/22/91. I have read that the actual version number for Intel Inboard 386/PC is Windows 3.0(0a), which is different than Windows 3.0a. I have read that these are the various flavors of Windows 3.x:

• Windows 3.0
• Windows 3.00a
• Windows 3.00a mme with Multimedia Extensions 1.0
• Windows 3.0(0a) for Intel Inboard 386/PC

Should Intel Windows 3.0 for the InBoard 386/PC be referenced in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirstLightImaging (talk • contribs) 12:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows 3.0/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Urbanoc (talk · contribs) 04:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is my first review, so bear with me...

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Minor corrections suggested and implemented. Beyond that, it was already reasonably well-written.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The potentially most contentious sources are the Microsoft Press ones, as they can be considered primary and linked to the subject. However, they seem to be used according to WP:PRIMARY policy.

The Business Insider-supported bit seemed to have too close paraphrasing, it required either some rewritting or in-text attribution. Fixed.

1. a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It seems correct in its coverage.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Both negative and posite aspects of the topic are addressed, without bias.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No red flag on article stability.

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The screenshot rationale seemed good enough. I asked for File:Windows 3.0 logo.svg at Commons to have a second opinion and stay on the safe side. As I suspected, there are doubts about its public domain tag, so I thought it should be removed, because it didnn't bring much to the article and could become a red link in the future

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   All concerns were addressed, so I consider it already pass the GA criteria.

Some suggestions:

Lead

• Windows 3.0 is the third major release of Microsoft Windows, released in 1990.

"Release... released" doesn't look good to me. I suggest to replace "released" with "launched"

• Like its predecessors, it is not an operating system, but rather a graphical operating environment that runs on top of DOS.

I'd link "operating environment"

• It features a new graphical user interface where applications are represented as clickable icons, as opposed to a list of file names seen in its predecessors

I'd add "(GUI)" after "graphical user interface", I'd link "applications" to "application software", "icons" to "icon (computing)", and "file names" to the same. I'd replace "a list" to "the list", I think it makes more sense with the way the sentence is written

• Microsoft was, however, criticized by third-party developers for the bundling of its separate software with the operating environment, which they viewed as anticompetitive

I'd remove the "however" and replace "anticompetitive" with "an anticompetitive practice"

• It sold 10 million licenses before it was succeeded by Windows 3.1 in 1992.

I'd replace the first "it" with "Windows 3.0"

Development section

Please link the first mention of "graphical shell"

• Before Windows 3.0, Microsoft had a joint relationship with IBM

Change it to either just "business relationship" or "partnership", as "joint relationship" seems redundant

• Software that was compatible with DOS was not with OS/2, giving IBM the upper hand.

I'd replace "the upper hand" with "an advantage"

• When IBM learned of Microsoft's upcoming project, their relationship was damaged, but Microsoft asserted that it would cancel Windows after it was released and that it would continue to develop OS/2.

I'd replace "it was released" with "its release"

• That said, the company's "Entry Team", assigned to that task, was concerned that the public might perceive it to be no more than a tool used by large enterprises, due to the software's high system requirements

I'd remove the "That said,"

Features section

• The Control Panel, where users can change settings to customize Windows and hardware, is also redesigned as an icon-based window.

I'd change "is" to "was"

• Windows 3.0 retains many of simple applications from its predecessors

I'd add a "the" after "of"

• Unlike DOS applications, which may have Help as part of them...

I'd replace "Help" with "help functions"

Reception section

IBM'S → IBM's

@Urbanoc: I think I addressed all the problems and suggestions above. It was not difficult, taking me an hour to fix them all in only one edit. If you like, you can take a look at the article and see whether there is anything else that could use improvement or anything I missed. I appreciate the review. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 22:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gamingforfun365. In my opinion, it already pass the criteria. I'll be finishing the review and listing the article as GA. Good work! --Urbanoc (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)