13 Dec
2005
13 Dec
'05
8:24 a.m.
Well, IMHO, Win95 was rather close to a real multitasking system, at
least for Win32 programs. Maybe not as good as Linux or even NT, but
it got the job done and got it done significantly better than 3.x
And before people go bashing 95 anymore, I want to go on record as
saying it's one of the few M$ products I actually like. It runs well
on even a 486 with only 8 MB of RAM (already an almost obsolete config
by the time Win95 came out) and has one of the cleanest, nicest GUIs
around (bested at the time only by NeXT and OS/2 WPS)
13 Dec
13 Dec
2:26 p.m.
Madcrow Maxwell wrote:
Well, IMHO, Win95 was rather close to a real
multitasking system, at
least for Win32 programs. Maybe not as good as Linux or even NT, but
it got the job done and got it done significantly better than 3.x
My main problem with it was that it tended to disintegrate over time and
eventually would need a reinstall as functionality would start to break and
free disk space would mysteriously vanish...
All modern OSes (MS-based and otherwise) seem to suffer from that, but Win95
was the worst.
And before people go bashing 95 anymore, I want to go
on record as
saying it's one of the few M$ products I actually like. It runs well
on even a 486 with only 8 MB of RAM
Not for program development it doesn't. Been there, done that! I can believe
it works well enough for WP and the like though.
I'd say it was the point where the downward spiral of ever-increasing
application bloat started though. I don't remember Win 3.x apps or even apps
on other platforms being as colossal as the typical Win95 app was, and it's
all gradually got worse since then. I'm not sure whether Win95 itself is the
root cause of that or not - probably not, but it's strange that it happened
around that time period.
cheers
Jules
5:51 p.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
Yes, this is Microsoft Cancer(tm). It exists on all of the DOS-legacy versions
(95, 98, 98se, ME).
What prompted me to move from 98 to 2000 was that, at some point, I lost the
ability to drag icons. I could delete them, right-click-to-get-properties
them, etc. but not drag once icon onto another to get things to happen, which
is functionality I had become accustomed to. A week later, things magically
started working again.
I'm not sure which infurated me more -- the fact that I lost the ability to
drag icons, or the fact that it started working again with no involvement on my
part. Both were terms for dismissal ;-)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
Well, IMHO,
Win95 was rather close to a real multitasking system, at
least for Win32 programs. Maybe not as good as Linux or even NT, but
it got the job done and got it done significantly better than 3.x
My main problem with it was that it tended to disintegrate over time and
eventually would need a reinstall as functionality would start to break
and free disk space would mysteriously vanish... 
7:32 p.m.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:26:47 +0000
Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Madcrow Maxwell wrote:
There are decent mechanisms to produce frozen 'mirror image'
copies of your well-configured and working software environment,
though. It can be as simple as installing a little 'stub' version
of Linux on the machine and using the dd command to mirror your C:
drive to an image on D:, or by using Ghost. So you set Win95 up
just the way you like it, carefully keep program and data space
separated (not that difficult) and 'blow' the saved image back
onto your C: drive from time to time. It's easy to create
bootable CDROM images for that purpose.
There's really no reason to ever install Windows 95 from the bare
Microsoft media more than once on any particular architecture.
Well, IMHO, Win95 was rather close to a real
multitasking
system, at least for Win32 programs. Maybe not as good as
Linux or even NT, but it got the job done and got it done
significantly better than 3.x
My main problem with it was that it tended to disintegrate over
time and eventually would need a reinstall as functionality
would start to break and free disk space would mysteriously
vanish...
6868
days inactive
6869
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
madcrow.maxwell＠gmail.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org