Slashdot Mirror
Windows 95 Turns 15
An anonymous reader writes "15 years ago on this day, Microsoft's then new Windows 95 was released. Among other things it moved users away from the archaic file manager and program manager to Windows explorer and the start menu. Compared to today's 'social desktop,' I'd much rather have the simpler and more sparse (pre-Internet Explorer integrated) Windows Explorer, though I do not like the (lack of) stability that Windows 95 offers. Of course if you were alive then, you've probably seen the commercials." I fondly recall downloading build after build and installing them. But within months of the official release, I switched to Linux.
Are we specifically referring to dos, or just the concept of cli file manager?
No. File Manager was a GUI program included with Windows 3.x (and still included as EXE only up to Windows Me).
R.Mo
Sorry, I call bullshit. A known issue, fixed only in 1999, would prevent Windows 95 and 98 from going over 49.7 days of uptime (2^32 milliseconds). Much hilarity ensued back in the day since "how could anyone have noticed / run into this" :-)
Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
I've used 98lite back then. The full version can also remove other unwanted stuff.
Windows 95 finally gave me the ability to rub his arrogant face right in my ass. And, for that, I say "Thank you, Bill Gates."
No, it didn't.
Windows 95 ran concurrent win 3.1 and DOS apps like shit. But I guess you forgot that.
OS/2 wasn't out-competed by other products in the market -- it was tactically murdered by Microsoft to spite IBM (who had hugely invested in it) and put Windows in total control of the market.
I kid you not. This played a huge part in the anti-trust lawsuit, and it's well-documented historical fact. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/368660.stm
So, I wish your buddy could have continued throwing OS/2 in your face, because today we could definitely do with a bit more competition in the OS department.
You are right that OS/2 was way better than Win 95. However, IBM was always on board. It was Microsoft who sabotaged OS/2. You do know that Microsoft wrote the original versions of OS/2? But at the same time, they were working on Windows 3.0. When it was released and got popular, they basically bailed on OS/2. And left IBM to clean up the mess that Microsoft had created. IBM had mostly rewritten it by 1996 when OS/2 Warp 4 came out. But by then, it was too late.
Win95 was 32-bit "OS" bolted on DOS. OS/2 was 32-bit from the ground up.
Argh, not this again. Windows 95 used DOS basically as a bootloader and not much else.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/12/24/6849530.aspx (Even references Slashdot bait, thanks to myths perpetuated on here).
Once in protected mode, the virtual device drivers did their magic. Among other things those drivers did was "suck the brains out of MS-DOS," transfer all that state to the 32-bit file system manager, and then shut off MS-DOS.
Yes, it did use it as a bootloader. Question is: why didn't they write a propper bootloader in the first place then? Also, it damn well could use DOS drivers. The device manager complained about drivers in 16-bit mode, but it use them. It WAS a hybrid and not a full 32-bit OS.
Microsoft Windows 95 was released on August 24th, 1995.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/173161-48-windows-release-date
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/microsoft/stories/1995/debut082495.htm
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/08/dayintech_0824
So, either all of those places (and a good chunk more) have been "fixed", or you're the one trying to change reality.