Anyone else remember the Windows 95 song?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
ViRGE

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Anyone who knocks Windows 95 clearly doesn't remember Windows 3.1.:p
 
corkyg

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
238
106
ViRGE said:
Anyone who knocks Windows 95 clearly doesn't remember Windows 3.1.:p
Click to expand...

<LOL> Or 2.1! 3.11 was the immediate predecessor. I recall the pain and agony of setting up a LAN with 3.11.

Anyway, the 95 song was a nice memory - thanks!
 
S

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
ViRGE said:
Anyone who knocks Windows 95 clearly doesn't remember Windows 3.1.:p
Click to expand...
My 386 was on Windows 3.1 and that bitch never crashed. Not even once.

For a while I thought Windows 98 was a load of shit, but it turned out it was crashing because of hardware issues. Long story short, eMachines computers are garbage and the CEO should be killed (about 10 years ago)
 
Mem

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
corkyg said:
<LOL> Or 2.1! 3.11 was the immediate predecessor. I recall the pain and agony of setting up a LAN with 3.11.

Anyway, the 95 song was a nice memory - thanks!
Click to expand...

I was a DOS fan until Win 95 arrived, hated Win 3.1 etc...
 
lxskllr

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,409
7,591
126
Mem said:
I was a DOS fan until Win 95 arrived, hated Win 3.1 etc...
Click to expand...

Same. Win3.1 was bloated. I used a shareware program that put graphical boxes on the desktop, and had text for the different programs. I used that to launch my stuff. Otherwise, I did everything in DOS.
 
O

owensdj

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2000
1,711
6
81
Windows 95 was a big disappointment. MS tried to do too much with it by creating something that could run not only the relatively new 32-bit Windows apps but also the legacy 16-bit Windows apps and DOS apps. As a result it wasn't as stable running 32-bit apps as it could be.
 
S

SimMike2

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2000
2,577
1
81
Windows 95 was such a big disappointment because many people with average computers didn't have the memory or processor speed to run it properly. Their so-called minimum RAM total was not even close to being enough. To run it right cost a lot of money upgrading your memory, which was way more expensive back then. Out of all Windows upgrades, Windows 95 was the one that required the most expense to get your computer upgraded.
 
J

john3850

Golden Member
Oct 19, 2002
1,436
21
81
I asked my wife to get it which she did but she got the floppy discs.
When 98 and me came out I had to put all the 95 floppies in for ms to check before I could upgrade.
Hated floppies since that 95 install.
 
GrumpyMan

GrumpyMan

Diamond Member
May 14, 2001
5,778
262
136
It was a big to do back then when W95 came out, people standing in line to purchase. Kind of like for new Apple products today.
 
S

spikespiegal

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2005
1,219
9
76
Windows 3.11 with adequate RAM and running Norton Desktop was a pretty slick piece of work . For Windowed office applications it worked pretty good out of the box and NetBEUI did it's thing with networking. I supported a lot of offices with this set-up and as long as they ran compatible apps it was stable and productive. It was when people started strapping other apps onto it that they ran into problems.

Win95 tried to do too much, and I jokingly refer to it as a 16-bit OS with 32-bit subsystems. MS should have just grown balls and made it a true 32-bit OS and told people running DOS apps to grow up. Win95 did a lot for the hardware industry but it actually put software development back a few years. Win98 is still the most prolific OS I've ever encountered.

NT 3.51 is the one OS that makes me mad given MS should have put their R&D into that kernel rather than dink around with Win98 or ME. I was doing things with dual and quad processors on Nt 3.51 at the time that were science fiction for Apple or any other MS operating systems. MS should have stepped directly from Win95 to NT because they had PC makers by the nuts anyways and nobody would have fought back.
 
R

Ross Ridge

Senior member
Dec 21, 2009
830
0
0
spikespiegal said:
Win95 tried to do too much, and I jokingly refer to it as a 16-bit OS with 32-bit subsystems. MS should have just grown balls and made it a true 32-bit OS and told people running DOS apps to grow up. Win95 did a lot for the hardware industry but it actually put software development back a few years. Win98 is still the most prolific OS I've ever encountered.

NT 3.51 is the one OS that makes me mad given MS should have put their R&D into that kernel rather than dink around with Win98 or ME. I was doing things with dual and quad processors on Nt 3.51 at the time that were science fiction for Apple or any other MS operating systems. MS should have stepped directly from Win95 to NT because they had PC makers by the nuts anyways and nobody would have fought back.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really make sense at all. Why should've Microsoft made Windows 95 into Windows NT when they already had Windows NT? Sure, Windows NT 3.1 was slow and essentially unusable, but a lot of work went into Windows NT 3.5/3.51 to fix most of those problems. That is, if you had 16MB of RAM.

Windows 95 was a great desktop operating system for the time. Back in 1995, Windows NT wasn't really practical for anything but as a server. Windows 95 was a huge improvement over Windows 3.x in terms user interface and often performed better. While it used more memory than than 3.x, the additional of a dynamically resizable disk cache ment it often used memory better.
 
O

oynaz

Platinum Member
May 14, 2003
2,448
2
81
I remember all the fuss about Windows 95 and still preferring Amiga Workbench.
 
S

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
spikespiegal said:
Win95 tried to do too much, and I jokingly refer to it as a 16-bit OS with 32-bit subsystems. MS should have just grown balls and made it a true 32-bit OS and told people running DOS apps to grow up.
Click to expand...
lol Windows 7. XP was all 32 bit. Vista was a combination of 32 and 64. Windows 7 is expected to be 64 only, but then they screw it up and do 32 bit again.
 
CKTurbo128

CKTurbo128

Platinum Member
May 8, 2002
2,702
1
81
Munky said:
Either way, cutting support for 32-bit apps would have been stupid.
Click to expand...

It's not like they would have dumped 32-bit compatibility entirely. The WoW64 compatibility layer (Windows on Windows, not World of Warcraft) works extremely well for 32-bit apps on 64-Bit Windows. The only problem would be legacy devices that only have 32-bit drivers available, although that issue could be solved through virtualization.
 
dac7nco

dac7nco

Senior member
Jun 7, 2009
756
0
0
Jesus, in the Windows 95 days 1MB SIMMs were over $30 each... A 486/25 with 4MB and a 10-Base-T NIC was a Doom monster. I was still using Amiga Workbench.

Daimon
 
D

Dude111

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2010
1,495
5
81
Thats the first i have heard that song! (The parody of Start it up)

Interesting........

My first Windows usage was win95 and it was ok i guess....... Didnt know much back then...
 
C

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
The first computer I bought with my own money had windows 95. It was a Pentium 2 300mhz with 16MB of RAM, and some Matrox graphic card with 4MB. At the time, late '97, it was a beast of a machine and ran everything I tried for years. Added 32MB of RAM and upgraded to windows 98 at some point, and later upgraded to windows 2000, not sure but probably added more RAM by then to get it up to 128MB.

Replaced it in '00 with a 700mhz Athlon (T-Bird), but even then I kept it going as a secondary PC. Didn't throw it out until 5 or 6 years later, longest I have ever kept a computer.
 
jhansman

jhansman

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2004
2,768
29
91
I got my start on Windows 2.0, which came bundled with my MS Mouse. God, on a 10 MHz 286 it was painful, and something of a novelty. Outside of running Excel, no one used it. Fast forward to Win95? Heaven....
 
S

Skott

Diamond Member
Oct 4, 2005
5,730
1
76
The vid brings back memories. When i bought my first PC it had Windows For Workgroups 3.1.1 It wasn't a bad O/S for its time I suppose. I skipped Windows 95 and got Windows 98 which was basically a fixed and enhanced W95. Now Windows 2000 Mellenium(not the server version), now there was a crappy O/S. My first laptop had that pile of junk. I hated it with extreme passion. Then XP came along and that was much better. I skipped Vista. I now have W7 or as some call it Vista Done Right. To me it seems that every other O/S Microsoft makes it a dud. So, I'm not real thrilled about W8 that they are currently working on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom