Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 95 Turns 15

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i-remember-when dept.

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.

11 of 461 comments (clear)

  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. 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.
  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. 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
  5. 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!

  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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