Win 95 - 10 years old

[Matt1eD]

Gone quickly. Some may say, wow, look how it's advanced. Others may say omg, those were the days. Others may say it's all rubbish. Wonder whether Bill thought that ten years down the line his software would be like it is now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ebut082495.htm

[Jonny M]

People may disagree, but Windows 95 was great, and no doubt had a hand in kick-starting the home PC revolution. It gave me no hassle at all, and generally ran perfectly.

[joshwa]

I dare everybody who reads this thread to find an old pc (or a new one) and install Windows 95 on it - take a picture and then post it here

[aidanjt]

man, thats going back awhile.. Win9x was always a pain, although later on I discovered installing Visual Studio 6 helped stop applications hanging the entire system.

[aidanjt]

Indeedy.

[Spud1]

People may disagree, but Windows 95 was great, and no doubt had a hand in kick-starting the home PC revolution. It gave me no hassle at all, and generally ran perfectly.

I'll disagree Windows 95 was horrible, horrible horrible horrible. Granted it was a step forward, but a large proportion of the kernel was still heavily based on windows 3.11, it wasnt fully 32bit - more a hybrid of 16 and 32bit code. This was bound to cause issues, and ofc it did. Horribly unstable (though better than 3.11) after a few months of operation - largely due to the issued presented by legacy issues (the 16bit stuff )

Windows 98 was the real landmark for M$ imho - granted it was really just 95 with bugs fixed - but it was still a separate OS in its own right. Legacy issues were addressed, and this helped to make it a more resilient OS.

still interface wise 95 wins much simpler than 3.11 for none techies to understand, and it managed to hide its dos roots well enough. It was still rubbish tho NT4 was a much better OS

[Dav0s]

Windows 98 was the real landmark for M$ imho - granted it was really just 95 with bugs fixed - but it was still a separate OS in its own right. Legacy issues were addressed, and this helped to make it a more resilient OS.

and then came windows ME.....

[5lab]

you used to be able to close the start button on '95. you just had to press ctrl+esc, esc then alt+_ and then the arrow keys. you could also move it about. great fun

[aidanjt]

I try not to think of ME belonging in the 9x family, that was a horrible 98/2000 hybrid, it just took all the worst parts of the two and made what some call an OS out of :/

[darrensen]

I forgot the amount of times i had to reformat my machine due to win ME! I reckon after about the 16th format i decided to put Win 2k on!!

[unrealrocks]

you used to be able to close the start button on '95. you just had to press ctrl+esc, esc then alt+_ and then the arrow keys. you could also move it about. great fun

OMG I remember doing that when I was back at secondary school !!

It seems only a short while ago I was still using 95 Really shows how far MS has got (although I think it could have moved further, but then it always can).

[PMM]

lol we still have machines in the factory where I work running Win 95

Nobody program's Virus for them anymore!!! So has its advantages :chuckles:

[TheAnimus]

I'll disagree Windows 95 was horrible, horrible horrible horrible. Granted it was a step forward, but a large proportion of the kernel was still heavily based on windows 3.11, it wasnt fully 32bit - more a hybrid of 16 and 32bit code. This was bound to cause issues, and ofc it did. Horribly unstable (though better than 3.11) after a few months of operation - largely due to the issued presented by legacy issues (the 16bit stuff )

Windows 98 was the real landmark for M$ imho - granted it was really just 95 with bugs fixed - but it was still a separate OS in its own right. Legacy issues were addressed, and this helped to make it a more resilient OS.

still interface wise 95 wins much simpler than 3.11 for none techies to understand, and it managed to hide its dos roots well enough. It was still rubbish tho NT4 was a much better OS

No, NT 3.51 was the landmark.

[[DW]Cougho]

ive still got a machine on Win95.

My parents use it for looking on the net (every 6 months or so ). Although due to its lowly 32mb of memory my 1mb BB can deliver pages to the PC quicker than it can display them

but my win95 machine was supremely stable and still is. (win95B again)

[cm_uk]

I'll disagree Windows 95 was horrible, horrible horrible horrible. Granted it was a step forward, but a large proportion of the kernel was still heavily based on windows 3.11, it wasnt fully 32bit - more a hybrid of 16 and 32bit code. This was bound to cause issues, and ofc it did. Horribly unstable (though better than 3.11) after a few months of operation - largely due to the issued presented by legacy issues (the 16bit stuff )

Windows 98 was the real landmark for M$ imho - granted it was really just 95 with bugs fixed - but it was still a separate OS in its own right. Legacy issues were addressed, and this helped to make it a more resilient OS.

still interface wise 95 wins much simpler than 3.11 for none techies to understand, and it managed to hide its dos roots well enough. It was still rubbish tho NT4 was a much better OS

^ aggree

[Ceefer]

My niece uses an old Compaq Deskpro 400mhz machine with Win95 every day. It boots up faster than any of my WinXP machines and is supremely stable.