Archives
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
Windows Presentation Manager Documentation
The OS/2 Museum just posted a three-volume set of draft Windows Presentation Manager reference documentation. This refers to the OS/2 Presentation Manager GUI but highlights the story Microsoft pushed in 1987: Windows and OS/2 both used the same graphical user interface called “Windows Presentation Manager”.
Microsoft Windows 2.03, 1987, 3.5" DD media
By the time OS/2 1.1 was released, the “Windows” part was dropped and the GUI was called simply Presentation Manager. And conversely Windows dropped the “Presentation Manager” moniker again and went back to being simply Windows.
But for a while, users were going to be able to run the same Presentation Manager applications on top of either DOS or OS/2, and developers only needed to design a GUI application once. Practice clearly does not always follow theory.
The preliminary OS/2 Presentation Manager documentation was almost certainly published in July 1987. That meant it predated the release of OS/2 Presentation Manager by more than a year, and in fact even predated the release of Windows 2.0 by a few months.
The references at the outset say that “it is strongly recommended that the documentation be read for informational purposes only”. Nevertheless, it is valuable historical documentation showing the Presentation Manager design as it existed in mid-1987, about nine months before the first beta version of Presentation Manager was even available (in the MS OS/2 SDK 1.03 release of April 1988).
The documentation still refers to “DOS” in many places when it’s clearly talking about OS/2 (for example, “a DOS module definition file”). This goes back to the times when OS/2 was called DOS 5, so as to distinguish it from the “legacy” DOS 3 and multitasking DOS 4, of course. There are notably no screenshots in the documentation, only ASCII art mock-ups of GUI windows.
The references do not contain only programming information. A fairly detailed description of the user interface and basic Presentation Manager applets is also included. Volume 3 then on the other hand contains device driver programming information, which was not part of the released Presentation Manager programming documentation (it was documented separately in a DDK).
5 Responses to Windows Presentation Manager Documentation
The sections about the Filing Cabinet and its affliated Start-A-Program and the related API calls were a fascinating read. Simplification as the development realized that program launching definition information was already available in PM executables and didn’t need a separate AIF. Mac users would have needed something different to complain about if the split into File Manager and Program Manager had not happened.
Having common executables or even common source code for Windows and PM seems to already have been lost as PM used bottom left for the origin point.
Yes, reading the preliminary docs makes me wonder how much of it was just a spec and how much was actual code. The first “public” beta from April ’88 was much closer to the final release than to the mid-’87 documentation.
It seems that the way the API schism went down was that both Microsoft and IBM were unhappy about many aspects of the Windows API and decided to improve it in incompatible ways. The coordinates were just the most visible difference. But then Windows 2.0 came out and kept compatibility with the old Windows 1.x API and the whole portability thing flew out of the window.
It was probably more an accident of history than a conscious decision, but I’m sure it did hurt OS/2 (and maybe Windows, too, at least initially) when developers realized that having shared code for PM and Windows apps was quite difficult to achieve.
What did you use to straighten the scanned pages? They look flawless!
It’s Acrobat X Pro, version 10.1.10… the app itself is kind of terrible (I can’t read PDFs while another is being OCRed? Seriously!?!) but it does produce decent output. So far I haven’t found anything better.
What I will add is that sometimes software can only do so much. Some manuals are simply badly printed such that the lines aren’t quite parallel, or aren’t straight. At first it took me a while to realize that it’s not a software bug, the print was just so bad π
“… sometimes software can only do so much …”
Agreed. I was bummed when Scan Tailor and ABBYY FineReader 11 (150γγ« US) didn’t straighten pages satisfactorily. I wound up prototyping an app using the Hough transform in AForge.NET and learned the transform /itself/ isn’t very precise β even on 1-bit ‘sanity check’ samples with just a few parallel lines.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.