Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates: Windows 95 Was 'A High Point'
BobJacobsen writes "CBSnews.com has an article about Bill Gates and Steve Balmer answering questions at the 'All Things Digital' conference. When asked about 'high points' in his time at Microsoft, Gates replied 'Windows 95 was a nice milestone.' The article continues 'He also spoke highly of Microsoft SharePoint Server software, but didn't mention Vista.' Was there really nothing else that Gates considered a high point?"
Bill also said that he very much enjoys cleaning toilets.
It was about then that Bill Gates found photocopying machines and began to rip off Mac OS.
Ah, I remember way back when Windows XP was released, all the Lunix zealots tried to paint that as a failure, too.
Kind of ironic how they are now putting it forth as the greatest operating system ever created. But intellectual consistency isn't really that important among the Stallmanistas.
I predict that when the next desktop version of Windows is released, all the Lunix Zealots will be whinging about how terrible it is compared to Vista, and how Vista was the Greatest OS EVAR.
WTF. Defensive body language? What are you, a behavioral psychologist and a whiney mac fanboy? Can you whistle Beethoven's 5th with your nose as well?
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
To be frank Win95 was a necessary evil but ultimately a LOW POINT for many of us who actually used the old systems (dos / Win 3.1) and many of their apps. Even though Win95 had it's technical merits. It didn't get better till 98 and finally 2K / XP basically got to where Win95 should have been earlier in terms of stability, etc. The early versions of direct X were just downright shameful, try loading up an old copy of Mechwarrior 2 for windows if you want to see what I mean. Lots of old programs did moronic things (like try to forcefully install old versions of direct x, etc). There was a lot of BS windows caused IMHO in the shift to win9x/NT and it's children. The introduction of the windows registry is BY FAR the most evil thing windows brought into existence, no longer were applications EASILY migratable by a simple directory copy, you had to worry about programs migrating a bunch of BS in the registry, and the accumulation of "windows cruft" which slowly slows down the MS os's until one has to reinstall, even XP needs a re-install now and then if you are a heavy user constantly moving apps into and out of your system. Who here is annoyed that programs are no longer self contained and have their own copy of .dll or whatever special library/drivers/etc they need?
I think people here are forgetting all the awful crud that Win95/98/2K and XP introduced us to: The mammoth registry system and apps being able to secretly write to registry without your permission or say so behind the scenes, how many registry entries that perform different functions are named with those god awful {ABC123-XXXXZ-NNN} etc registry keys? There is a lot of cruft IMHO with the registry system and there was still DLL hell (and other similar things like it) until windows XP.
I know I haven't FORGOTTEN about all the BS.
Free software gives users choices. It is non free software that presumes what's best for users.
Non free software does not even get what one user think is best to the customer. If Bill Gates thinks Win95 is a high point, shouldn't Vista be more like it? Market pressure has forced them to make superficial changes that confuse the user. The design by committee process has created glaring inconsistencies. A single person's vision consistently delivered would be better than what they have. All of it would be better if they made it free so that users could change it into what they really want.
To be frank Win95 was a necessary evil but ultimately a LOW POINT for many of us who actually used the old systems (dos / Win 3.1) and many of their apps. Even though Win95 had it's technical merits. It didn't get better till 98 and finally 2K / XP basically got to where Win95 should have been earlier in terms of stability, etc.
.dll or whatever special library/drivers/etc they need? I think people here are forgetting all the awful crud that Win95/98/2K and XP introduced us to: The mammoth registry system and apps being able to secretly write to registry without your permission or say so behind the scenes, how many registry entries that perform different functions are named with those god awful {ABC123-XXXXZ-NNN} etc registry keys? There is a lot of cruft IMHO with the registry system and there was still DLL hell (and other similar things like it) until windows XP. I know I haven't FORGOTTEN about all the BS.
The early versions of direct X were just downright shameful, try loading up an old copy of Mechwarrior 2 for windows if you want to see what I mean. Lots of old programs did moronic things (like try to forcefully install old versions of direct x, etc).
There was a lot of BS windows caused IMHO in the shift to win9x/NT and it's children. The introduction of the windows registry is BY FAR the most evil thing windows brought into existence, no longer were applications EASILY migratable by a simple directory copy, you had to worry about programs migrating a bunch of BS in the registry, and the accumulation of "windows cruft" which slowly slows down the MS os's until one has to reinstall, even XP needs a re-install now and then if you are a heavy user constantly moving apps into and out of your system.
Who here is annoyed that programs are no longer self contained and have their own copy of