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.

24 of 461 comments (clear)

  1. I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had a buddy back in 94/95 who was constantly throwing OS/2 in my face. Hey, look at all the Windows I can have open, look at my clean interface, look at how much faster and more stable this runs that your Win 3.11, look at all these DOS sessions open simultaneously!

    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."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but OS/2 was still way better than Win95. Win95 was 32-bit "OS" bolted on DOS. OS/2 was 32-bit from the ground up. The Windows of today has more in common with OS/2 than it has with Windows 95.

    2. Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your buddy was right and you still are clueless.
      OS/2 was a much better OS than Windows 95. It had a better UI, it was a lot more stable, and was really a very modern OS.
      There are still some knowledgeable companies that are just now migrating the last of their systems off of OS/2

      Windows 95 was cheap. That was it's only real benefit. I hate to say it but the terms arrogant and ass would seem to bet apply to you and not your friend.
      That and Microsoft got the hardware manufactures to install it. Had IBM gotten everybody on board with OS/2 it would have one. In this case it was all marketing and you bought it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by niks42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, trust me we did work hard with OS/2 preloads to try to convince people that it was a good platform, but ultimately we lost out to a better, meaner, more willing to do the unethical and probably illegal, marketing machine.

    4. Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by airfoobar · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but OS/2 was still way better than Win95. Win95 was 32-bit "OS" bolted on DOS. OS/2 was 32-bit from the ground up. The Windows of today has more in common with OS/2 than it has with Windows 95.

      Windows 95: n.
      32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

      http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/win2bit.html

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
    7. Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Windows 95 was cheap. That was it's only real benefit.

      Yeah, apart from the single most important one - it ran more things that people wanted to run.

    9. Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ALOT

      You don't need to capitalise your errors, we can spot them without your help.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Study what makes an OS popular? It's already been done. Those exclusive contracts that Bill Gates got from all the vendors did it. One doesn't even need to look at any other of Gates unfair trade practices. There came a point where any vendor HAD to be able to offer MS - and Gates insisted that if they sold MS, they could ONLY sell MS.

      A few other little tricks reinforced those exclusive contracts - like donating a few million computers to high schools and colleges, so that students were indoctrinated into the Microsoft way of doing things. But, those contracts are the numero uno prime reason for MS "popularity".

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What was wrong with DOS as the bootloader? The upside is that single user DOS mode could be used as a recovery console, even allowing you to run DOS based applications without loading the full Windows.

      --
      This space for rent.
  2. I look just like Buddy Holly by Enderwiggin13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think one of my favorite things about Windows 95 was the music video for Weezer's Buddy Holly on the install disc.

    --
    This sig is in another castle.
    1. Re:I look just like Buddy Holly by ZaphDingbat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We got a kick out of the networked "Microsoft Hover" game: http://www.johnlamansky.com/blog/the-legend-of-microsoft-hover/

  3. Windows 95 vs. Windows 98 by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Funny

    I liked using Windows 95 over 98 because it rebooted much faster after bluescreening.

    --
    This space for rent.
  4. simpler and more sparese by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know who Roberto Sparese is, but I'm sure he'll get a few more hits to his Facebook account as other readers also wonder whether that was actually a little-known word and not just a typo.

    P.S. Cute kitty, Roberto!

  5. "turns 15"? by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I could imagine using this sort of anthropomorphisation for a product that was still active, I think Windows 95 is dead.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  6. RE:"pre Internet Explorer integrated) Windows Exp" by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    me too

    get win98 or win98se and run ROM or ROM2se on it (ROM = Revenge of Mozilla) it is basically a tool that strips out IE & OE and the win98 windows explorer and replaces it with a hacked/patched win95 windows explorer, and it is much more stable than win95 & more stable than a stock win98/win98se (i have to say it makes the best win9x possible but the only caveat is any application that requires internet explorer will not function. but anything else works great.

    after doing a quick google search i think this app is nowhere to be found, i bet i can dig up a copy on an old CD-r that i kept with lots of ancient third party applications for win9x

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  7. 15, you say? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

    After so many years of Windows giving me an assfucking, now it's finally legal to... oh wait, one more year. Mustn't make that mistake again!

  8. Re:Bland and inoffensive by Gruturo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Indeed. In 1997, I ran my Windows 95 box with a year of Uptime without needing to reboot it,

    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.
  9. Drinking Game by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know someone who took a drink everytime W95 blue-screened. He died of liver damage in 97.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  10. I remember Windows 95 by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was at Boeing back then. Everyone in engineering had Macs but the fix was in with Microsoft. W3.1 was judged unsuitable for use, so only a few poor suckers were stuck with that. We had a number of PCs running DOS. Great for lab use, as numerous ISA cards were avaiilable, or easily cobbled up by our technicians.

    One day, the IT folks showed up and dropped a Dell 166 on my desk (between my Mac and X terminal). It only had a DOS command prompt, but the hardware guys assured me that the Windows guys would follow shortly with their install disks.

    About 3 months later, this pig was still sitting there with nothing but a DOS command prompt staring back at me. The story was that initial W95 installs were proving to be a disaster and IT was in the process of staffing up to levels needed to support the platform. I went to my boss and told him, "While I'm waiting, there's this other system available now that I can load and try out. Its called Linux."

    He said, "OK" and I've never looked back. Thank you Mr. Gates.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Re:Bland and inoffensive by internewt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My work Win 95 machine, in the 300MHz days, was coaxed into running for about 30 days without a reboot. By then it was unusable though, I remember icons on the screen all being corrupted, you could barely start any applications due to lack of resources. I can't remember if I purposefully rebooted it in the end, or if it crashed.

    9x did not do stability, but it did mean that when sat in front of a 9x machine you wouldn't get stuck at the office late. 2 minutes before home time, a quick double ctrl-alt-del and it would be a case of "fucking Windows has crashed again. Oh well, might as well go home, 'cause I can do anything without the computer working". You can't get away with that any more, every day. Maybe once a month. The PHBs have wised-up to the fact that most computers don't appear to be as shit as they used to be. Windows is of course as shit as it used to be, just in different ways.

    Just remembered another 95 PC in the same office, connected up to a client's network for support, that went really strange one day, the clock started going too quickly. I think it was going about 4 times faster than it should, and seeing the clock spinning too fast was utterly hilarious. The machine seemed to be working fine otherwise though. A reboot cleared it, and I never saw Windows do that again... that was the kind of craziness you got with 9x!.

    --
    Car analogies break down.
  12. Win95 seemed promising at first, but then... by FridayBob · · Score: 4, Insightful
    • CPU and memory requirements were so much higher, that you basically needed a brand new machine to run it.
    • Because of the registry, it was no longer possible to copy a program to another machine by simply copying a particular directory structure and a few .ini files. For M$, of course, this was the entire point. Unfortunately...
    • Because the registry was so easily corruptible, people who used it would regularly see their machine's performance drop and/or encounter regular lock-ups and blue screens, and subsequently find themselves spending hours reinstalling everything. It was no longer possible to fix things by modifying a few .ini files with a text editor.
    • Because of the registry, which would quickly grow beyond the size of a 1.44 MB floppy disk, the only real backups possible were disk-image backups.
    • Because the registry could so easily be exploited, the number of species of computer viruses exploded. Without that, the virus industry would certainly not be as successful as it is today.
    • Because of the registry, it could become next to impossible to get certain complicated machines, particularly fancy laptops, to work properly after installing all of the necessary drivers.
    • It would not lend itself to the simple remote boot method that was previously so popular with Win311 (well, I do know of one NetWare shop that actually managed this feat anyway, but it was very complex). For many of us who thought we had things licked, this made network maintenance an order of magnitude more complicated.

    At the time may career as a NetWare sysadmin was just taking off, so it was another six years before I made the switch to Linux, but for me Win95 marked the beginning of the end of my belief in proprietary software.