I wasn't saying it hadn't been, I was just pointing out:
A: Whoever would do this must not have a whole lot happening in their life to *want* to do it, and:
B: That if one were to do this "right" and run the DOS-based versions of Windows on matching contemporary versions of DOS you wouldn't be able to do this without repartitioning and reformatting the hard disk several times. Less than ten seconds into that video you can see that the person who did this used exactly the cheat I suspected, which is they used "MS-DOS 7.10", which is an (illegal) repackaging of the DOS component of Windows 95-OSR2/98/ME, so they could use a large FAT32-formatted disk partition to do their little dance on. So... no, they cheated and the video is a lie.
Or, at least, it's not directly comparable to the situation you'd be dealing with trying to cycle through the whole pile of Macintosh System versions. The best way to describe what they did here would be if there was a way you could use most of... let's say MacOS 8.6, (IE, a version of the "classic" MacOS that has HFS+ support and shipped with the "Sawtooth" AGP G4 which is also a machine that go all the way to Leopard with a couple minor upgrades) as your "base" and could just install and run the Finder from ancient versions on top of it. (Until you reached the point of upgrading to 9.0, of course, at which point you'd upgrade the whole OS.) You can't of course do that on MacOS because the GUI and "underlying OS" are glued together far more intimately than DOS and Windows are, but that's my whole point.
*IF* you were to do it correctly and say that you had to start with installing Windows 1.0 on top of MS-DOS 2.11 or 3.1 you could still probably get away with one piece of hardware (although compatibility with DOS versions as old as 2.x is spotty even in AT class machines) but, again, you'll be reformatting the disk drive a bunch of times. Lying cheating video is a lie.
A: Whoever would do this must not have a whole lot happening in their life to *want* to do it, and:
B: That if one were to do this "right" and run the DOS-based versions of Windows on matching contemporary versions of DOS you wouldn't be able to do this without repartitioning and reformatting the hard disk several times. Less than ten seconds into that video you can see that the person who did this used exactly the cheat I suspected, which is they used "MS-DOS 7.10", which is an (illegal) repackaging of the DOS component of Windows 95-OSR2/98/ME, so they could use a large FAT32-formatted disk partition to do their little dance on. So... no, they cheated and the video is a lie.
Or, at least, it's not directly comparable to the situation you'd be dealing with trying to cycle through the whole pile of Macintosh System versions. The best way to describe what they did here would be if there was a way you could use most of... let's say MacOS 8.6, (IE, a version of the "classic" MacOS that has HFS+ support and shipped with the "Sawtooth" AGP G4 which is also a machine that go all the way to Leopard with a couple minor upgrades) as your "base" and could just install and run the Finder from ancient versions on top of it. (Until you reached the point of upgrading to 9.0, of course, at which point you'd upgrade the whole OS.) You can't of course do that on MacOS because the GUI and "underlying OS" are glued together far more intimately than DOS and Windows are, but that's my whole point.
*IF* you were to do it correctly and say that you had to start with installing Windows 1.0 on top of MS-DOS 2.11 or 3.1 you could still probably get away with one piece of hardware (although compatibility with DOS versions as old as 2.x is spotty even in AT class machines) but, again, you'll be reformatting the disk drive a bunch of times. Lying cheating video is a lie.