Incorrectly named files?

edited June 2020 in Site Issues

In the Windows 2.xx versions, there are 2 basic types of 2.xx. There's 2.0x versions, and then there's the 2.1x versions. The 2.1 versions are in turn divided into 2 types, 286 and 386. However, a number of the 386 versions are misnamed. Looking here several of them are labeled as 2.0x 386 versions, but to the best of my knowledge, no such thing ever existed. The 286 and 386 versions were all versions of Windows 2.1x, and not 2.0x. Can a site admin here please fix those filenames? Thanks in advance.


  • Ok, it seems my original post was in error. There apparently IS a 386 version of Windows 2.0x. I got a screenshot of its setup program in Virtualbox and uploaded it to Imgur.

    Either this is a rare official version of 2.0x or it's a hacked version of 2.0x that was more recently created by hackers to add 386 support to Windows 2.0x. Can anybody here confirm what exactly this 2.0x 386 version is?

  • OS2museum claims to have a boxed copy of 2.01 /386. That and the comments make me think the common narrative is flat wrong.
    Raymond Chen also remarks here that Win 2.0 had it, though Chen does perhaps misremember details at times.

    Additionally, InfoWorld Aug '87 predicts the release of Windows/386 "this fall" and indeed OS2Museum calls out their edition as September '87, so this all tracks.

    My strong feeling is that the idea that 386 support was introduced in 2.1x is simply an incorrect assumption one person made on a website which has been repeated for years and amplified to the point of becoming "authoritative" on Wikipedia. Now one wonders if this - clearly exculpatory - information, e.g. "there are literally multiple copies of 2.0x with 386 support" will be enough to ever correct the situation.

  • Also just thought to google the specific phrase: "windows/386" "2.03" and here we are, some disks

    BetaWiki claims RTM of Aug 88.

  • Windows 2.0x and Windows 2.0x/386 were released at the same time or about the same time. The naming confused people so starting with 2.1 they named them Windows 2.1x/286 and Windows 2.1x/386. That.... did not really help.

    Because of this, the organization on the page is a bit wonky. Technically it aught to be separated in to just 2.0x, and 2.1x, but then the entire /386 and /286 stuff would be even more confusing.

  • edited June 2020


    The posted image is for Windows/386 2.01, not 2.03.
    I have this disk and uploaded it on WinWorld in 2014.

    (P.S. Do not quote my sentence.)

  • @SomeGuy I concur that that appears to be the case but it's phenomenally difficult to find a source that states it other than, like here, someone just saying it. I've tried finding references in e.g. infoworld with very little success other than sidelong mentions that don't quite say it all in one place.

    I actually rewrote the Wikipedia pages in an attempt to unmuddy these waters a little bit ago, but now I recognize even my updates are probably incorrect as well, but I have no supporting references, because every source either repeats the inaccuracy about 386 being introduced in 2.1, or mentions /286 and /386 in the same breath.

    In other words, given Wikipedia's standards (in particular), one can easily "prove" the false information, but can't easily prove the probable truth.

  • So Win 2.0x was for 286 (but not explicitly stated as such) until the 386 version of 2.0x was released, at which point 386 became part of the official name? And then when 2.1x was released, there were again 2 separate versions (286 and 386) but this time 286 was officially part of the name of the 286 version?
Sign In or Register to comment.