66 replies to this topic

[Ben]

Oh, if you poke around the site, he definitely has an anti-Microsoft thing going. That's all I meant.

[Hergiswi]

Oh, if you poke around the site, he definitely has an anti-Microsoft thing going. That's all I meant.

Ohhh, gotcha. That much is definitely true. I couldn't help but notice a stark lack of criticism on other operating systems, particularly Macs. I guess you have to take his writing with a grain of salt since he still uses Windows 95.

[Nicholas Steel]

Windows 95 is pretty good though, or at least Windows 95 OEM (AKA: Windows 95c) is. The first 2 releases of that O/S are incredibly crash prone though and well, back then it was pretty hard to get an OEM copy of any software for home use so most people had the horrible early releases of Windows 95 and it was all MS's fault for not just releasing Windows 95c and giving a cheap upgrade disc to those that had an earlier version.

Basically all the bad stuff you hear about Windows 95 applies to Windows 95a and Windows 95b but not Windows 95c.

Edited by franpa, 02 December 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[Hergiswi]

Windows 95 is pretty good though, or at least Windows 95 OEM (AKA: Windows 95c) is. The first 2 releases of that O/S are incredibly crash prone though and well, back then it was pretty hard to get an OEM copy of any software for home use so most people had the horrible early releases of Windows 95 and it was all MS's fault for not just releasing Windows 95c and giving a cheap upgrade disc to those that had an earlier version.

Basically all the bad stuff you hear about Windows 95 applies to Windows 95a and Windows 95b but not Windows 95c.

Interesting. I've been trying to piece together the history of Windows and its quality recently since all I remember growing up was:

1) Wow, Windows 3.1 is cool!
2) Wow, Windows 95 has menus! Awesome!
3) A bunch of other stuff happened and now I have Windows 7

How practical do you think it would be to run Windows 95 nowadays? Obviously it can't run 64-bit stuff, but would it be a Windows equivalent of running OS X 10.4 or so?

[Nicholas Steel]

Define practical. It obviously won't recognize any of the current motherboards hardware at all so you'll basically be running it without any kind of hardware acceleration and most devices aren't built around having direct hardware access either so you can count DOS support out as well.

[Ventus]

How practical do you think it would be to run Windows 95 nowadays? Obviously it can't run 64-bit stuff, but would it be a Windows equivalent of running OS X 10.4 or so?

It would not be even any count. It couldn't run any of the new hardware. Its pretty pointless if you ask me.
The only thing I wish I could do Is go back to Windows 98 and Windows ME. Those were the best Os's Micro$oft ever made.

[Hergiswi]

It would not be even any count. It couldn't run any of the new hardware. Its pretty pointless if you ask me.
The only thing I wish I could do Is go back to Windows 98 and Windows ME. Those were the best Os's Micro$oft ever made.

I don't know why you would want to use either of those. Windows ME was notoriously awful, and I can't imagine that you would get anything out of Windows 98 that XP can't offer.

[Ventus]

I don't know why you would want to use either of those. Windows ME was notoriously awful, and I can't imagine that you would get anything out of Windows 98 that XP can't offer.

Are you crazy? Windows ME and 98 was awesome. I had them both growing up and they were some of the best systems you could have.
Heck it was hard to kill a 98, Unlike XP which could killed by moving the hard drive to another computer or something like that.

ME was good at some points. Like being cool. And like 98. since it was the last OS that was based on top of MS-DOS.

[Hergiswi]

Are you crazy? Windows ME and 98 was awesome. I had them both growing up and they were some of the best systems you could have.
Heck it was hard to kill a 98, Unlike XP which could killed by moving the hard drive to another computer or something like that.

ME was good at some points. Like being cool. And like 98. since it was the last OS that was based on top of MS-DOS.

I don't know if "being cool" is a legitimate argument for anything, especially an OS put out by a multi-billion dollar corporation.

So how many people here are using Windows 8 now? I'm curious: if you completely eliminate the Modern UI and forget that it exists, what has improved? I can't find anything online regarding the improvements of the classic desktop interface.

[Nicholas Steel]

Dunno, but ME definitely did improve the desktop over Windows 98 and was just as stable as windows 98, at least for me. It has things like more shortcuts between various system setting locations so you can more quickly find what you want and can find it from more locations amongst other stuff and the default desktop experience was tons better. (Though Internet Explorer 6 SP1 fixed the default desktop experience somewhat for 98)

[sigtau]

Windows XP took all of the "good" ideas that originated in ME (System Restore, Movie Maker, etc.) and uses a modified Windows 2000 kernel--which is why it identifies itself as Windows NT 5.1 in the shell.

Granted, the facelift in XP either soars or sucks, depending on who you talk to.

[Nicholas Steel]

Well from what I've heard XP wasn't much better then Windows ME until around the time Microsoft got Service Pack 2 out. It wasn't until all the updates which ended up in that service pack, where released, that XP stopped sucking ass.

[Xenix]

The last time I had Windows ME, the security absolutely sucked. I could gain access to my account without even inputting a password. All I did was press Esc and it logged me in. I liked Windows 98 and Windows 2000 better than I liked Windows ME.

[Nicholas Steel]

That's true, however why would you use a Windows 9x operating system in a multi-user environment in the first place? If you wanted security you'd use another O/S or a a copy of Windows built on the NT kernal. I figure Microsoft felt the same, that Windows 9x was too full of bullet holes and switched the feature to acting like family management software instead of security because Windows9x was so bad at security regardless of that components behavior.

We always used a single user back then and BIOS passwords for family management anyways >.>"

I do still hate the switch to multi-user BS that Windows XP introduced and MS retains in future Windows. I prefer all content a program creates, resides within that programs folder! Not My Documents!

Edited by franpa, 13 December 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[Ventus]

Well If anyone is till fearing Windows 8 because the start menu is gone.
I found a very good replacement for it!

http://www.startisback.com/

I just found this yesterday, and gave it a try. and holy crap its fantastic! Its even better then the classic shell :O