Based on the time of the release, obviously we wouldnt compare a 10 year old operating system to something today. I have heard time and time again "windows sucks"
Was Windows 95 that bad of an operating sytem of its time?
My experience, no. Not the most stable, but I can't say I have had bad experiences using that operating system on a typical system for it [meaning a 75 Mhz Pentium with 24 MB memory with a 850 MB drive and a 4x CD-ROM]. That doesn't mean there werent issues. There were issues on just the hardware, like the CD-ROM wouldn't read a disk that had more than one session, or CD-RW.
How do you compare this GUI with another, like Warp OS/2, or Mac OS of the time era?
Time to discuss: Windows 95
Moderator: CricketMX Forum Moderators
-
Layzie Bone
- Mr. Computergeek Salad Guy
- Posts: 2465
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Mom's got a little laptop running win95 on 70mhz processor and 40MB RAM. It boots up faster than any of my xp machines. We never used it heavily enough to see how sturdy it was. Also, there's no network card. Someday, if I find a use for the IR port, I might take it back from her. 
-
Layzie Bone
- Mr. Computergeek Salad Guy
- Posts: 2465
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
I got a NEC ProSpeed SX, a i386 Processor with 4 MB ram with Windows 3.1 that boots pretty fast.
I'm curious as to how fast Windows 95 would boot on my computer. I dont even know if I could get it to boot. Funny enough I tried installing 3.1 and couldn't get it to work, but thats a 16 bit OS that doesn't support FAT32, or NTFS by any means. and I couldn't get Partition Magic to create a FAT12 partition, since it was such a low technology, I guess security reasons, wouldn't make one, even at boot time.
As you know Windows 95 was the first ever 32 bit OS.
I'm curious as to how fast Windows 95 would boot on my computer. I dont even know if I could get it to boot. Funny enough I tried installing 3.1 and couldn't get it to work, but thats a 16 bit OS that doesn't support FAT32, or NTFS by any means. and I couldn't get Partition Magic to create a FAT12 partition, since it was such a low technology, I guess security reasons, wouldn't make one, even at boot time.
As you know Windows 95 was the first ever 32 bit OS.
I must have been lucky with both win 95 and win 98. I must have had particularly clean installations or something... or maybe I didn't muck it up too much myself. Either way, both were fairly stable and didn't crash much. Neither ever had to be reinstalled and worked on their respective machines until the hardware died.
-
Layzie Bone
- Mr. Computergeek Salad Guy
- Posts: 2465
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
I think for a lot of people the reason why thier experiences with Windows 95 and 98 were poor waa because they loaded them up with a bunch of crap.
When I got this computer that had win 95 it had all kinds of crap on it, it ran fine once it booted, the booting was tricky, if i were a novice user anyway.
And this old one at school someone clearly an idiot deleted a bunch of system files and windows had limted functionality, display drivers, sound, etc, etc.
When I got this computer that had win 95 it had all kinds of crap on it, it ran fine once it booted, the booting was tricky, if i were a novice user anyway.
And this old one at school someone clearly an idiot deleted a bunch of system files and windows had limted functionality, display drivers, sound, etc, etc.