Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 95 Turns 15

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-remember-when dept.

GUI 461

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.

cancel ×

461 comments

Incoming sockpuppet troll odies/sopssa/SquarePixel (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354260)

Which sockpuppet will be used to troll this thread?

Remember it moderators, odies = sopssa = SquarePixel, three sockpuppets, one stupid troll! His posts are simple: repeat ad nauseam what the article posted, add a few 'Captain Obvious' style facts and then add his anti Linux/Google/Apple/USA innuendo. Or it's a simple China or MS apologist post that turns into a straw man, and you guessed it, it's against Linux/Google/Apple/USA.

Peace out!

I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354262)

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."

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (5, Insightful)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354308)

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.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354632)

Many OS's were better and died or got very vew users. OS/2 and many others. It's necessary to study what makes an OS popular to gather some more share from Microsoft. I'd like to see a study of where all the MacOS users are coming from.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354822)

OS/2 didn't get "very few users". It was a very mainstream operating system at its peak.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354848)

True...but did OS/2 have Hover [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (1)

Useful Wheat (1488675) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354312)

From wikipedia:
"Official system requirements were an Intel 80386 DX CPU of any speed, 4 MB of system RAM, and 120 MB of hard drive space."

I have porn that wouldn't run on this computer (Blue rays take a lot of processing power). Which brings me to my next point, the code name of "Chicago" was prescient. Seriously, named for political blustering and needless posturing. The windy city by virtue of people at each other's throats because of their beliefs.

Yep. Perfect.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354478)

They'd dropped the codename because of all the "all blow and no go" jokes being made. It took Microsoft FOREVER to get the silly thing out and they rolled out a less stable product than the last RC they pushed out to the beta testers. And we won't go into the horrors they inflicted on the developer beta testers that got pre-betas... >;-D

FIFTEEN YEARS!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354320)

We can subtract! 2010 minus 1995 equals FIFTEEN!!!
 
Let's skip to the third grade!

Re:FIFTEEN YEARS!! (2, Funny)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354616)

I can subtract too, 2010 minus 2011 equals minus one. Autodesk Maya 2011 must have come out negative one years ago ;)

Windows 95 vs. Windows 98 (5, Funny)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354326)

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

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354404)

Prat. OS/2 was a bloody good OS but needed decent hardwar to not be a complete dog, win95 was still running on top of DOS, still crashed, still had lots of compatibility issues, was always plagued with virii, had awful networking capabilities, couldn't handle more than 768M RAM etc etc.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354492)

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."

Well, then you still didn't understand the differences.

Windows '95 was still vastly lagging behind OS/2 or Linux in terms of it's ability to truly multi-task and be more robust and stable.

While '95 was an improvement, it was still a turd, and it still ran on top of DOS essentially. You kiddies that think you got something new and better than the rest of us already had are way wrong. It almost caught up, but it didn't exactly surpass..

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354844)

At the time AmigaOS 3.0 or 3.1 on a vanilla A4000 was way better than Win95 on a 486

Many people forget this too.

Unluckily commodore had already gone bankrupt and amiga was already fading away.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354552)

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."

And thusly the lord elrous0 spaketh and set down into law what defined an operating system as good.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354606)

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.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (4, Insightful)

niks42 (768188) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354688)

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.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (3, Informative)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354738)

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.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (3, Informative)

keeboo (724305) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354654)

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.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354660)

Windows 95 drove me to archive my fat partiton into a tar file on my linux one, and haven't looked back since.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (0)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354682)

In 1995 I went off to Europe to work for 6 months. I threw my Linux box into the server room back in the US behind a rack and left it plugged in with no monitor and no keyboard. Used it every day from Europe to process my porn images, do C++ development, read usenet.

I remember all the people talking about their super stable new Win 95 machines. At no time did I ever wonder if my Linux box was going to crash, and it never did. 4000 miles would be a long way to go just to push the little reset button. Win 95 couldn't be predicted to be running in an hour. It was a toy, for little babies.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (5, Informative)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354734)

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 [bbc.co.uk]

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.

Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell (1)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354744)

OS/2 was still the better OS, by ALOT. Its closed nature doomed its future, and there was alot of mistrust in IBM in the marketplace at the time, but in terms of stability w/ a gui inteface, it was unmatched. The OS lived on long past its best-before date in alot of utility devices like information terminals @ airports and kiosks, ABMs, and other devices into the mid-2000s.

Loved it. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354274)

One of my favorites was WinNuke on IRC. Good times, good times.

Re:Loved it. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354452)

Ahh shit I remember winnuke. Took out WIndows NT 4 & 3.1 too. I used to moderate an IRC channel and had a mirc macro that if anyone tried to start shit I could right click and *boom* disconnect.

Good times.

Archaic file manager? (1, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354300)

Are we specifically referring to dos, or just the concept of cli file manager? Because frankly, to this day I run most of my linux boxes without a gui.

I'm not quite sure Archaic is the right word for something as useful as the cli.

Re:Archaic file manager? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354316)

Just as summary states, they're referring to File Manager and Program Manager.

Re:Archaic file manager? (3, Informative)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354358)

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).

Re:Archaic file manager? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354384)

They're referring to File Manager, the Windows GUI that preceded Explorer.

Re:Archaic file manager? (1, Interesting)

odies (1869886) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354410)

I never really liked the Windows Explorer as a file manager. Hundreds of different windows, folder settings now following you around but different folders showing differently, slow and just not powerful enough. Pre-Vista era I always liked Turbo Navigator [softpedia.com] a lot more, similar to how I use xplorer2 [wikipedia.org] now. The recent Windows versions came with even more simpler and stupid file managers. I guess they're fine for a casual user, but a file manager really needs to have tabs and two panels.

Re:Archaic file manager? (2, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354494)

Xplorer2 is great, somehow I think it was a mistake of MS to not include a dual pane option, as it's a real pain in the ass at times to copy things around the file tree using explorer. But given either Xplorer2 or Teracopy and it works out a lot more effectively.

Re:Archaic file manager? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354448)

Clearly, you never used Windows 3.1. "File manager" and "Program Manager" were the programs you would use to interact with your system in Windows 3.1 (actually, last I checked, Program Manager still existed in Windows XP, and probably still in Vista and Windows 7).

I remember putting it on a 486 (1, Interesting)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354314)

I remember getting caught up in the hype and putting it on a 486 DX2 66 with 4 MB. Damn but that was slower than molasses running uphill in January. Suffered with that computer for nearly 2 years before I saved up enough for a replacement (poor college student at the time).

Re:I remember putting it on a 486 (1)

ddrichardson (869910) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354490)

Must be all about the memory, I had it running on a DX33 with 8Mb. It was fine but I remeber having a terrible time with a driver for the Avance Logic graphics card that it had fitted. Things like the clock (when you double clicked the time) as the hand swept round the screen wasn't redrawn.

Strangest thing was that the card worked fine in Slackware.

Re:I remember putting it on a 486 (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354580)

It's amazing how relatively expensive computer hardware was back then. Or maybe we all got richer...

Re:I remember putting it on a 486 (2, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354668)

I remember getting caught up in the hype and putting it on a 486 DX2 66 with 4 MB. Damn but that was slower than molasses running uphill in January. Suffered with that computer for nearly 2 years before I saved up enough for a replacement (poor college student at the time).

God, 4MB of RAM for Windows '95??? That must have been brutal.

In '92 or '93 my girlfriend bought a similar machine with 4MB of RAM, and that was only Windows 3.11. On the second day she had it we watched Word thrash the machine within an inch of its life with a single document open. On day 3 she had me install Linux, which could actually work better with 4MB of RAM.

Machines of that era are what taught me to put as much physical memory into a machine as you can afford -- Windows or Linux, the machine will last longer and not become bogged down in it's VM. Heck, my Vista machine with 8GB of RAM has been a joy since it's had all the resources it ever needed. I credit throwing that much memory at it with actually having found Vista to be a pretty good OS.

Re:I remember putting it on a 486 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354810)

I see Vista on a lot of machines with only 512mb of ram. That is one major reason a lot of people hated Vista. It was a memory hog. With 1gb it becomes mostly usable. I remember back in the early pentium days, I maxed out the ram and bought the backside cache stick for my machine. Made win98 run circles around matlab and ansys. Just amazes me how people would rather have dual graphics cards, but only 1gb of ram.

Re:I remember putting it on a 486 (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354860)

Back then, I ripped the guts out of my 386 and put in a P133 with 32MB RAM, a 1GB HDD, and even a T1000 for backups. That, plus a 28.8 modem. That managed to run '95 about as well as could be expected.

I look just like Buddy Holly (5, Insightful)

Enderwiggin13 (734997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354322)

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

Re:I look just like Buddy Holly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354450)

Without question.

Re:I look just like Buddy Holly (1)

ihatejobs (1765190) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354518)

It makes me smile that someone else remembers this. I remember watching it when I first installed back in the day... Good times.

Re:I look just like Buddy Holly (1)

Anne Honime (828246) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354570)

... Good times.

Freudian : this was the title of the second clip on the same CD. Can't remember the girl name right now.

Re:I look just like Buddy Holly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354770)

What?

Are you thinking of Edie Brickell?
WTF is Freudian?

Re:I look just like Buddy Holly (1)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354582)

What, you didn't like the butterfly commercial? Where do you want to go today?

Re:I look just like Buddy Holly (4, Interesting)

ZaphDingbat (451843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354610)

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

Re:I look just like Buddy Holly (1)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354724)

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

Good lord. I remember that. It was made to look like a Happy Days episode. There was also an Edie Brickell video on there.

Re:I look just like Buddy Holly (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354758)

I believe that was the last known instance of Microsoft being cool.

Bleh! (0)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354334)

Wow. I'm used to article summaries that have opinion or conjecture thrown in, but the only "information" in the summary here is the friggin title! Cmdr Taco I am disappointed.

Bland and inoffensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354336)

Windows 95 was my first version of windows, and was a remarkably bland and inoffensive experience.

For me personally, 98 with active desktop was the start of the blue screens and instability which became a meme till the present day.

Re:Bland and inoffensive (0)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354426)

>>Windows 95 was my first version of windows, and was a remarkably bland and inoffensive experience.
>>For me personally, 98 with active desktop was the start of the blue screens and instability which became a meme till the present day.

Indeed. In 1997, I ran my Windows 95 box with a year of Uptime without needing to reboot it, and it worked a lot better than I expected for an "OS" that wants to reboot itself every time you change the most minor system setting.

If you go back and count the number of clicks/keypresses it takes you to do something in Windows 95, you'll be surprised how much faster it is than Windows7, which is apparently optimized for people who have hundreds of open applications at once.

Re:Bland and inoffensive (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354538)

A year? I don't recall mine going that long without needing a reinstall. I'm sure it was possible, I just didn't feel like putting in the work it took to make happen. Back during the days when DOS was the thing, it wasn't so bad, even with Win 3.1 bolted on top of it, but somehow Win 95 marked the more or less beginning of the end of any effort at keeping up the appearance that the customer is the person that purchases the copy.

Re:Bland and inoffensive (5, Informative)

Gruturo (141223) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354638)

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 [microsoft.com] , 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" :-)

simpler and more sparese (4, Funny)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354346)

I don't know who Roberto Sparese is [facebook.com] , 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!

"turns 15"? (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354356)

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

Within months? (0)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354360)

But within months of the official release, I switched to Linux.
And today -- 15 years later -- it's still "almost ready" for the desktop.

Yes, more back-end shit runs Linux, but the sad fact is that Windows still owns desktops and Linux advocates have been too busy pissing in each other's teacups to bother taking advantage of the massive learning curve that Win7 requires, something so bad that switching to KDE or even Gnome is easier and more intuitive than "upgrading" from XP.

you're talking out of your back orifice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354544)

"And today -- 15 years later -- it's still "almost ready" for the desktop."

Lubuntu runs faster than Windows off a USB device, on the same hardware, browsing, word Processing, multimedia etc ..

lubuntu | light Ubuntu for faster computing [lubuntu.net]

Re:Within months? (2, Insightful)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354546)

It's not so much teacup pissing as herding cats.. It's hard to build a top-down integrated solution without people on (the same) payroll. The only thing that saved it for the back end is the fact that everyone generally agreed to do things the *nix way.

Re:Within months? (3, Insightful)

bieber (998013) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354612)

Oh noes, we're not taking over the world, our evil plan is foiled!

Surely, you don't really think that's what it's all about, do you? Who cares if Windows has more market share? The purpose of free software projects is to produce quality free software, and as long as we continue to do that we could care less whether more people are using it than the proprietary alternative.

Re:Within months? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354798)

I was thinking about modding you "flamebait", but I decided to check out your blog first.

Hang in there, man.

Windows 95: The beginning of the end? (-1)

LibrePensador (668335) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354362)

Windows 95 reminds me of an old Eagles song:

Life in the Crash lane
Surely make you lose your mind
Life in the crash lane, everything all the time
Life in the crash lane, uh huh
Blowin' and burnin', blinded by thirst
They didn't see the stop sign,
took a turn for the worse

Windows 95 was a house of cards that wasted thousands of hours of millions of people who lost their work and had to have their computers "repaired" on an ongoing basis. Not fond memories, I tell you.

I switched to Linux in 97, and although there were many other issues, once you got it running, it stayed that way.

Start me up Win95 (0)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354372)

Sure "you make a grown man cry" but I doubt "you make a dead man cum".

Re:Start me up Win95 (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354484)

Windows 95's upbeat but non-hipster marketing [youtube.com] marked the start of a high point for Microsoft. They were essentially saying "here's something we think is good enough to do lots of things with, and we're going to help you do that" - and they were right. It wasn't anywhere near interesting technically, but it was accessible, cheap, familiar and MS encouraged it to become well-supported on a variety of hardware.

Innovative OS (3, Funny)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354376)

Windows 95 was a trully innovative operating system. It allowed the convenience of use normally afforded only to those who had bought a Mac since 1986.

Re:Innovative OS (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354598)

You misuse "innovative".

innovative

— adj

        using or showing new methods, ideas, etc

Innovative was the MacOS environment.
Innovative was PalmOS when it first came out.

Of note:

derivative
–adjective

1.
derived.
2.
not original; secondary.

Windows 95 was derivative . It didn't really bring "new" concepts and methods to the table- save for Microsoft product users. Which, you have to admit, is the very thing you stated.

Re:Innovative OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354730)

Hear that above your head? The sound like a 'whoooosh'? That's a joke flying by, sonny. Maybe one day you'll catch one!

I remember that good old days... (3, Interesting)

martiniturbide (1203660) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354378)

...yes.. I remember the technical strategy behind Windows 95. Since Windows NT required more hardware let's create a mediocre Windows until hardware gets cheap enough to put NT on every machine. (finally it was accomplished with Windows XP)

Windows 3.11 (0)

Dan East (318230) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354418)

Compared to Windows 3.11 it was the best thing ever created by a human. In that context, Windows 95 was pretty amazing. I always wondered why it took so long for a PC based OS to have a mouse cursor that was actually responsive. I guess my Amiga 1000 set a high standard for me a decade before Windows 95.

Networking was the big gain (1)

yelvington (8169) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354646)

Networking was the big leap forward from my perpective. I never had mouse responsiveness issues with Win 3, but when it came to plugging in to the ethernet or a modem, it was a train wreck of competing and incompatible networking layers. Depending on which application you needed to use, you might have to reboot into a completely different configuration.

If you wanted to create a dialup Internet-access service, you had to distribute a whole networking bundle to your prospective customers. What a mess!

Win95 ended that chaos.

It was pretty, too. Installing it was a nightmare -- 18 floppy disks, as I recall -- and it was prone to locking up while trying to detect hardware. But if you got it working you thought you'd gone to heaven.

Then the viruses came, and the bluescreens, and joy turned to sorrow.

RE:"pre Internet Explorer integrated) Windows Exp" (5, Interesting)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354420)

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

Re:"pre Internet Explorer integrated) Windows Exp" (3, Informative)

zlogic (892404) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354648)

I've used 98lite [litepc.com] back then. The full version can also remove other unwanted stuff.

Re:"pre Internet Explorer integrated) Windows Exp" (1)

nitro322 (615518) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354742)

I used to use 98lite for this, which does still seem to be available [litepc.com] . Worked very well back in the day.

Re:"pre Internet Explorer integrated) Windows Exp" (2, Informative)

alexhs (877055) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354858)

after doing a quick google search i think this app is nowhere to be found

After doing my own quick google search I found a mirror of it on the first page of results here [easycommander.com] .

Teen years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354440)

and now Windows 95 is venturing into the angsty adolescent years. I don't even want to be around Vista when it begins high school....

Ah, the commercials... (0)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354496)

I still say that Apple should have come up with a counter-commercial, showing Win95 crashes, driver annoyances, and other problems, all to the tune of "I Can't Get No Satisfaction."

Re:Ah, the commercials... (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354528)

Well, seen in the context of Microsoft's other commercials and marketing campaigns, this is arguably the least terrible. Its almost actually kind of good. I didn't vividly remember how terribly Win95 was, I might actually be kind of inclined to want to buy it. Its much less lame than the Win7 commercials, and its 88 windows better!

Re:Ah, the commercials... (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354816)

Well, Apple's OS at the time wasn't exactly the pinnacle of stability (or anything else for that matter), so it would have made them look a bit silly. Even Mac OS 9, released in 1999, made Windows 95 look remarkably modern.

Norton Desktop (2, Informative)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354502)

I was using Norton Desktop on my Windows 3.1 box before Windows 95 came out. Nice clean interface and I didn't have to have a bunch of windows open. When 95 came out, it removed the need for Norton as it incorporated many of the features into the Windows shell.

I do know that Windows 95 killed my desire to muck with the system. With Windows 3.1 I was researching performance techniques and improving my config. I had a friend with a faster system however my Windows install was faster than his (he ranted a bit about it :) ).

But Windows 3.1 killed my desire to program until I got into Unix. I spent a lot of time reading the Petzold books and I understood how to write code for Windows but it was more complicated than I wanted to deal with for the hobby stuff I was doing.

[John]

15, you say? (5, Funny)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354506)

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!

Who cares? (0)

bit9 (1702770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354510)

I'm really not trying to flame/troll/etc, but these "X turns N years old" stories are among the stupidest, most worthless non-story, non-news items ever posted on Slashdot.

I mean, really, WHO CARES??? No, seriously, I'm not just trolling. I really want to know, who among you actually thinks this story is newsworthy and/or prescient, and more importantly, why?

Re:Who cares? (1)

nicc777 (614519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354788)

I like them... Reminds me how far we have come [toastytech.com] .

Re:Who cares? (1)

bit9 (1702770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354876)

Okay, but was Windows 95 really such an important milestone? And why is 15 years so significant? Next year it will be 16 years old. Are we going to have another Slashdot story about it then?

Ugh, so many bad memories of the Win95 launch (-1, Flamebait)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354520)

Ah... I remember the Win95 launch. I was still living at home at the time (doing my A-levels) and we only had one family PC. My Dad, who was (and remains) a huge Microsoft fanboy (he's never tried Firefox etc or any alternative OS, but believes Bill Gates has an "inspiring life story", which is apparently all that counts) got hold of a pre-release version of Win95 a couple of months before release and installed it on the PC. So absolutely nothing worked. Pretty much none of our old software (word processor, spreadsheet, games) would run under Win95, but it was made massively clear that reverting to DOS and Win3.11 was not an option. All of our objections were just "being backward and awkward" and if Win95 went from that PC, I could find somewhere else to live.

I remember the arguments, I remember my mother crying for a whole evening because she couldn't get the (nasty, old, DOS based) word processor going to do work for the university course she was doing part time, where she had an assignment due at the end of the week (my own A-level coursework had been handed in the week before, thank god). And I remember staying up all night later that week working with the "boot into DOS" stuff to actually get a decent portion of the software usable again.

I suppose the weird thing was that, with hindsight, my dad was sort-of right on one level. Once it had been out a while and once you had a library of software that actually worked with it, Windows 95 was undoubtedly an advance on where we'd been previously. It removed the need to keep a stack of boot-disks by the PC. It led to, or at least coincided with, a general push for better UIs in commonly used software. And it probably made it easier for the computer illiterate to do basic tasks (and also to break the OS in creative ways; a problem that would persist until UAC in Vista offered a partial solution). Moreover, the nasty old software we were reliant on at the time was well past its sell-by date and it was ultimately for the best that we abandoned it.

The problem, of course, was that sticking a pre-release copy of a new OS that represented a fairly radical departure from what we'd had previously onto a sole family PC that was used for the household finances, university and school work and gaming was a spectacularly bad idea, particularly when the one insisting on the new OS was arguably the one least dependant on the machine. Even a day 1 store-purchased copy would likely have been no better. There have never really been any advantages to being an early adopter when it comes to MS products. Somewhere along the line, my dad seems to have learned this. The problem I have these days is the opposite; their nasty, unpatched WinXP machine (one of my cast-offs from about 4 years ago) serves as a magnet for every form of malware imaginable and I tend to get stuck with a 2 hour phone call once every couple of months to fix the latest emergency relating to it.

Re:Ugh, so many bad memories of the Win95 launch (1)

keeboo (724305) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354764)

Ah... I remember the Win95 launch. I was still living at home at the time

I know what you mean... A bridge is not quite the same thing.

And people still don't read (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354572)

This layout of Windows has been in the market for 15 years, and I still have to do tech support for people who don't know what the fucking Start Button or task bar are.

"What web browser do you use?"
"Umm, I don't know? Foxfire?" "The E?"

try running Windows 95 on modern hardware... (0)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354594)

...notice the speed? That's how responsive an OS should be today. And no bullshit layers of indirection excuses. The hardware is capable, and the software just needs to be made efficient.

Re:try running Windows 95 on modern hardware... (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354872)

Replace Windows 95 with Windows 2000 and I agree. Windows 2000 was the apex of the Microsoft Operating systems. If it weren't for the ubiquity of wireless (and the non-support of Windows 2000 of it), I think I could still use it productively today. Windows XP brought two things that were worthwhile: Fast User Switching and Wireless support out of the box... which many wireless chipset manufacturers don't seem to understand given the unneeded crap they bundle. A third, but mostly for corporate use, would be Remote Desktop... but my memory might be hazy and W2k might have had it.

Useless, but still copyright protected. (3, Funny)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354670)

I guess Microsoft didn't make enough money from it yet, because it will still have copyright protection for some 60 years.

You make a grown man cry.... (1)

waterford0069 (580760) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354720)

Of course marketing wisely removed the "You make a grown man cry...." lines from "Start Me Up"

What a shame (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354740)

If Microsoft had to re-imburse businesses for all the hours lost and wasted dealing with the steaming pile of crap (aka Windows 95) they would have been bankrupted years ago.

Public Domain (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354752)

Now, can anyone honestly say that there is any valid reason why the complete source code to Windows 95 should not be in the Public Domain already?

Re:Public Domain (1)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354874)

Because someone might use it?

yay for windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33354774)

And yay for still selling games that ran under it. Alas no Populous III

Overly optimistic there... (2, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354778)

From the summary:

Of course if you were alive then, you've probably seen the commercials.

You don't honestly think that slashdot is in any way relevant to kids 15 and under, do you? If we even said "old enough to remember seeing the commercials" and graciously said that someone 5 years old at the time might remember them, that would mean you expect slashdot to have relevance to the 20-and-under set.

Although I honestly don't remember the commercials, and Windows 95 was the first OS I bought (or pirated? I don't remember now) on CD. I do recall that 95 was the first windows release that actually required you to enter a registration key at installation; 3.1 would graciously let you "enter it later".

Under appreciated? (1)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354804)

I think Windows 95 is greatly under-appreciated. I remember one of the biggest jokes was "Oh, its more Mac Like!". People who made that claim seem to not remember the horrors that was MacOS 7, 8 or 9. I did not become familer with Linux until 1997, so I cannot compare, but, as far as I can remember, the only thing even in the same league with Windows '95 OS/2, which Microsoft wrote a good deal of the code for, if I remember right. It pretty much standardized Plug N Play on the PC platform (granted, it was buggy, still had to manually reassign the IRQs on my Awe32 because Windows kept wanting to assign it the same IRQ as my video card), and it really started pushing the demand for faster processors (before that, people were like, my 286 can run Windows and I can run Word Perfect, why do I need a new computer). Windows '95 included Winsock intergrated into the OS, as well as dialers, so this made connecting to an ISP much easier than it had ever been. I was amazed with the concept that I could download multiple files at once! It made people want to upgrade to 256-color and high-color displays. The introduction of APIs ment that software manufactorors no longer had to write their software for each individual piece of hardware out there, you just had to have it complient to the API, and hope the sound card / video card / printer supported Windows specifications.

While it may have been insecure, prone to crashes, and the butt of many jokes, Windows '95 really did kind of revolutionize computing. I think credit is due.

I still have one machine running Win95 (1)

niks42 (768188) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354838)

A legacy bit of device programming kit I have only runs on Windows and needs a serial port, and I have an old Toshiba satellite laptop with not enough memory to boot XP .. Win95 works fine. I bought the world's oldest PCMCIA (non-32 bit) network adapter off a certain Internet Auction Site; I just drop Intel Hex files into a shared folder and off it goes. AND it doesn't insist on my downloading multiple updates for Windows security fixes every time I boot it. I did have to take the hard disk out, put a DOS boot image and all of the Win95 diskette images on to it to bootstrap the install, cuz I couldn't find enough 3.5 inch diskettes ..

What MS can never admit.... (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 3 years ago | (#33354854)

...is the Win95's ease of copying and piracy really established their dominance in the PC market.

OS2 was a better system, but iirc much harder to pirate.

The fact that sneaker-net distribution meant EVERYONE grew up with a system running Win95 ended up making Gates a bajillionaire.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...