Anyone still using Windows 95?

I use win95 at work. It's a old machine that is nothing more then a OS to run a email client and terminal emulator.

Don't like it, nobody likes it, so I get stuck with it because I don't realy need it anyways. Looks like it will get replaced with a old win2000 box in a couple months. (I am conspiring with the IT people to get Linux on it, but it needs to run the Email client of choice... Eudora. But currently they are trying to convince people to migrate over to Thunderbird since it's nicer on system resources (once people get 500+ emails) and since that runs on Linux...)

 

I have a 200MHz Pentium MMX machine here with 95 on it. I don't use it though. I may do something with it like s small file server or something. No entirely sure though.

 

Had 95A on the my work PC up till about 18 months ago. Couldn't use USB and only had 2gb Fat Hard disk space.

All because we had some old app that only ran on 95A. POS, kept blue screening whenever I tried copying files across the network.

Thankfully we've upgraded to Win2000 now, and things are much much better.

 

I got a system here at work running Win 3.11 WFW.

It's the only way we could get a system to log into a vendor's Netware Lite PC and pull down files.

Now there was a workhorse of an OS.

 

I use the CD for a coaster :laugh:

Bozo

 

Some arcade machines, run on Win95 (perhaps OSR2). Believe it or not...

 

You didnt notice it because you were probably moving up from a bare DOS install or Win 3.11. Back then Win 95 seemed so cool.

I dont use it at all. I upgrade enough until I think the machine will run Win 98. Its still a decent choice for a low-end computer if you dont want to mess with Linux.

I can build a complete system for $175 (using pricewatch.com) and install one of the many copies of Windows 98 floating around my home. And it runs Office 2000 just fine.

 

holy punchcards batman

 

oh hot dang! i have a Compaq Prolinea 4/66, 24 meg ram (early ninties). it runs 98, the reason I upgraded from 95 was network support.

 

What.....

I remember writing programs on punchcards.

Ahhh... the 70's.

 

The whole Windows 95/98/ME family of operating systems was a POS!! I can't believe to this day that video card makers (NVIDIA and ATI) still actually update drivers for those POS operating systems to support the latest video cards! I mean it's the year 2005!! What place do high end vdieo cards have for support on such POS operating systems that can't even manage large amounts of RAM without severe stability loss. Support for Windows 98/ME should have been ditched 3 years ago when it comes to high end games and programs. I find it ammusingly ridiculous that those POS operating systems are still supported to this day. If you have a need to run old games and DOS programs, why not just USE AN EMULATOR IN wINDOWS 2000/xp OR USE AN OLD pc WITH wINDOWS 98 ON it? But I mean Windows 98/ME have no place for modern hardware and software.

 

your pretty young arentcha? It's actually nice of the video companies to support those operating systems because there are still Windows 98 and ME machines out there FYI. I think windows 98 machines make up 10% of the computer population out there so it only makes sense to support it. Windows ME was on machines all the way up to P4 2.0GHZ and thats actually quite fast. So it would only make sense for ATI and Nvidia to support those operating systems. Your almost as bad as MS because they wanted to ditch 98 support a while back.. Its a GOOD thing for a company to support an operating system for a long time...

 

Windows 98 is very heavily still in use in the population. Let's put it this way, there are far more active win98 users than all Macs ever sold. So yes, there's a market for them.

 

If Windows 98/ME were actually based off Windows NT, I'd be all for continued support of them. But because Windows 98/ME are not based off of true 32-bit code, they are POS and should have died a long time ago. I mean WIndows 98/ME aren't even true 32-bit multi tasking operating systems. Those operating systems are the ones that actual gave Windows such a bad name for being awfully unstable and so badly inferrior to all other 32-bit multi tasking operating systems. I'm NO WAY just as bad as MS. I only think support should be ditched for those operating systems in Windows 98/ME because the video card companies could proably come out with more stable and better drivers because the architecture of Windows 2000/XP is completely different than Windows 98/ME.

I'm NOT almost as bad as MS. MS wanted to drop support for Windows 98 because they love forcing people to upgrade at the expesne of your pocket. I think support for Windows 98 should be dicthed because it is an inferrior piece of junk OS. I mean Windows 2000 is older than Windows XP, but I think Windows 2000 deserves a great deal of support because it is still a great OS that I find respectable. I mean I think Microsoft should have ditched support for Windows 98/ME a long time ago. However, I think there should be a Service Pack 5 for Windows 2000 and it should still be fully supported by Microsoft as well as all hardware and software manufacturers. I mean Microsoft actually wants to drop support for Windows 2000 relatively soon. I think Windows 2000 is still a great OS and should still be supported for a long time. I only think poeple running Windows 98/ME should upgrade because those OSs are POS. But if you are running Windows 2000, you shouldn't have to upgrade because Windows 2000 is a quality OS.

 

But how many of those Windows 98 users have a system that actually meet the requirements for such high end video cards and games? I doubt very many. And why would anyone want to run WIndows 98/ME on a high end system as their primary OS is beyond me?

 

Link of your source please.

 

n0c, it's true.... 10% of the computing world is still using Windows 98 so that would be more then the mac population period.

 

I bet that 99.99% of that 10% of the population that are still using Windows 98 have computers with CPUs 600MHz or slower. In NO WAY should such POS operating systems like Windows 98/ME be supported on software and hardware that has a minimum system requirments of a 1GHz or faster CPU!

 

I'd bet that it would be much more accurate that Win98 stats are closer to 5% then 10%.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

A couple years ago many many people used Win98, but since then most people bought new computers.

 

Ridiculous statement. I used Win 98SE with a 1.8GHz CPU, 512MB RAM; still have it on that machine under a dual boot configuration with Win XP. Win 98SE runs fine on that system; runs stable. And, it can be used with faster CPUs; there's no ceiling on CPU speed that it will run on.

 

Well look at intel's website, downloads for the intel 875P chipset drivers are here:http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/sb/CS-009242.htm

If you go and "attempt" to download the drivers, it will ask for your operating system and when you choose 98SE, it goes to a page where you can download them. So it clearly shows that intel thinks its worth it to support older operating systems. Hell trying it agian with plain old windows 95 and theres a driver for that too! Albiet old but it's still good, same thing applies with the original version of windows 98..

 

Windows 95 has been out 10 years now? Win 98 breads have been out about 8 or so years. I bet in 10 years you will be saying that Windows XP is a POS

 

People don't realize that a computer with windows 98 can do practically anything anyone would need it to do. Photo editing, gaming (even newer games), office related stuff, anything. The only need for windows XP is for security but otherwise windows 98 is fine since they aren't making as many new viruses for these older platforms.