Talk:Windows 2.1/Archive 1

Archive 1

new screenshot needed

If anybody can get a screenshot of Windows 2.1x running in a virtual machine much like the Windows 2.0 one, I think it would look much better. You can clearly see the curved glass of the CRT monitor and the refresh lag. The color is also a bit dim. However this may be a challenge as there would be very few people who actually still have a copy of Windows 2.1! Da rulz07 08:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone would like to do this, has a copy of an older version of DOS, but does not have a copy of Windows, go to www.vetusware.com and download a copy, and destroy it after use. Douglas C (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Windows 1.0 logo-edited.png

The image File:Windows 1.0 logo-edited.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Papa says this is 2.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.187.226 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

untitled

"Windows 2.10 was the first version of Windows to provide the option of installing third-party mice, and also the first to require a hard disk."

Not true - I have a Windows 2.03 setup program that one of the choices of which drive to install on was a hard disk.

64.53.2.215 12:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how that makes it not true. It says Windows 2.1 is the first one to require (need) a hard disk. You're saying Windows 2.0 can also use a hard disk. It's not the same thing as needing one. Josh the Nerd 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Josh

GA nominations of Windows 2.0x, Windows 2.1x, and Windows 3.1x

@Vacant0: I would like to review your three GA nominations of Windows 2.0x, Windows 2.1x, and Windows 3.1x. But first, I am hoping to understand some context on the articles, since 26 previous reviews are mentioned. I posted a message at Talk:Windows 2.0x to ask about where to find these.

Did these 3 articles used to be part of the same article? Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

Hello, I am Vifvuv, who is reviewing this article.

The article has good information, but is lacking in pictures. I can't download this or anything as I have a M1 Macbook, but if someone could get pictures I think the article would be better. Article meets all other criteria. Vifvuv (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: editor will not be reviewing nomination after all; the nomination has been put back into the pool of those nominations awaiting review with no loss of seniority. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)