What did people do when Windows 95 came out?

[Coke Robot]

I want to discuss something that probably might be in the wrong forum (sorry!) about the closest UI experience comparison to Windows 8: 95.

Now, for the older folk out there that remember, what was it when Windows 95 came out, the consumer reaction, and the business reaction, especially the ones that had Windows 3 and transitioned over to 95?

 

[Mystere]

Windows 95 was well received. There was some sarcastic comments, like why do you have to click on start to stop it. But, in general, other than the OS/2 people, it was well liked.

There wasn't anywhere near the installed base as there is now. The average machine had 1-4 MB of memory (yes, that's Megabyte, not Gigabyte) and there was some complaining that Windows 95 really needed 8MB (and 8MB of memory at the time cost about $400).

There was a lot to like about it, and it was a LOT more stable than Windows 3.11. And you could really multitask.

 

[BillWindows]

I want to discuss something that probably might be in the wrong forum (sorry!) about the closest UI experience comparison to Windows 8: 95.

Now, for the older folk out there that remember, what was it when Windows 95 came out, the consumer reaction, and the business reaction, especially the ones that had Windows 3 and transitioned over to 95?

The bigger problem was actually going from DOS to Windows, this is nothing compared to that. I even used DOS More than Windows, but could always see the future benefits of Windows. People just hated Windows. Back in those days you really had to know about using computers, there was no plug and play, everything was hard work to get setup, but enjoyable, it gave you a sense of achievement.

Windows 95 was pretty well received as far as I can remember and it was the start of plug and play, things became simpler. It was a major step up from Windows 3.11. From what I can remember about business, most took a long long time to change over from DOS. I can remember offices running WordPerfect for DOS and Lotus for many years after Windows came out.

 

[Coke Robot]

So if someone using DOS, or Windows 3.11, went and used 95, would had it been difficult and frustrating at times?

 

[BillWindows]

So if someone using DOS, or Windows 3.11, went and used 95, would had it been difficult and frustrating at times?

I would say for the average user, very frustrating and difficult, but I'd come over from the Commodore 64 and a couple of Amigas the 500 and 2000, I always liked change, the more the better, I enjoyed the challenge. I was completely self taught, never even knew anyone else with a computer for years, there was just me. I even managed to do a bit of coding on the Amigas and made a couple of little games, one a pinball game.
Nothing has changed over the years though, Microsoft has always had an image problem, people have always complained, the exact opposite to the Apple Loyalists.

I'm absolutely convinced if Microsoft were to give their Operating systems away for free, people would be complaining they weren't being paid to take it. It's always been this way and looks like it will remain so.
Have a look at any tech site, the bloggers just can't wait for Microsoft to fumble, then they'll tear them to pieces. Look at Apple at the moment, people have been waiting for that WWDC for months, Apple has done very little to their lineup and yet the bloggers are crazy in love and making excuses for them, this would never happen with Microsoft.

 

[fafhrd]

You also have to note that the basic GUI introduced in Windows 95 was so successful that it has persisted until now in Windows versions up to 7, and will continue for the most part - with Windows Explorer unifying the desktop shell, file manager, and control panel functionality into a single fluid and customizable entity, blurring the differences between the individual component programs. Quite rapidly over the next 2 years, Internet Explorer was also closely integrated into Windows 95, and even the Microsoft Office Suite, so that you could almost seamlessly transform your view from the Explorer file manager to the IE Browser to multifunctional documents with Objects that were Linked and Embedded.

It was truly amazing, considering, as Mystere says, the constraints that small amounts of RAM and disk space put on systems that were partly 16- and partly 32-bit.

This led to rather cruel (and clever) epithets like:

"Windows 95 - a 32 bit extension and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that does'nt care 1 bit for its users."

One frustrating thing was that you could manually repair a broken Windows 3.1 system if you had the basic know-how - Windows 95 and successors became less and less accessible to the "mechanic" with more functionality obscured in the registry. You could manually fix a broken Windows 3.1 with sysedit, or if push came to shove, edlin!

 

[BillWindows]

You also have to note that the basic GUI introduced in Windows 95 was so successful that it has persisted until now in Windows versions up to 7, and will continue for the most part - with Windows Explorer unifying the desktop shell, file manager, and control panel functionality into a single fluid and customizable entity, blurring the differences between the individual component programs. Quite rapidly over the next 2 years, Internet Explorer was also closely integrated into Windows 95, and even the Microsoft Office Suite, so that you could almost seamlessly transform your view from the Explorer file manager to the IE Browser to multifunctional documents with Objects that were Linked and Embedded.

It was truly amazing, considering, as Mystere says, the constraints that small amounts of RAM and disk space put on systems that were partly 16- and partly 32-bit.

This led to rather cruel (and clever) epithets like:

"Windows 95 - a 32 bit extension and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprossessor, written by a 2 bit company that does'nt care 1 bit for its users."

One frustrating thing was that you could manually repair a broken Windows 3.1 system if you had the basic know-how - Windows 95 and successors became less and less accessible to the "mechanic" with more functionality obscured in the registry. You could manually fix a broken Windows 3.1 with sysedit, or if push came to shove, edlin!

Like I said Microsoft has always been the butt of numerous taunts and will no doubt continue to be. I must admit from Windows 95 to now, I hardly notice the difference except for the Metro Interface and a few minor changes, a couple of days and it just doesn't seem all that different. Its really just like moving into a new home, not like learning a new language or something.

 

[Coke Robot]

So if someone using DOS, or Windows 3.11, went and used 95, would had it been difficult and frustrating at times?

I'm absolutely convinced if Microsoft were to give their Operating systems away for free, people would be complaining they weren't being paid to take it. It's always been this way and looks like it will remain so.
Have a look at any tech site, the bloggers just can't wait for Microsoft to fumble, then they'll tear them to pieces. Look at Apple at the moment, people have been waiting for that WWDC for months, Apple has done very little to their lineup and yet the bloggers are crazy in love and making excuses for them, this would never happen with Microsoft.

Oh I know! I've been looking in mountain lion and ios 6, literally the only differences I've seen in ios is apple maps and facebook connectivity and being able to text a person back who's call you missed. Basically, copying Microsoft's Windows Phone. It has its own Bing Maps and BUILT IN social networking without the apps. Even more so, you have a missed call, you can look at the caller's profile and from there, you can call them back or text them. If they're one of your contacts, you can do that as well as email them and even write on their facebook wall. Windows Phone does a flat out better job at putting people first than ios.

And mountain lion, really? It's like apple just discovered Windows 8. Almost everything "new" is a rip from 8, like continuous notifications even when the system is asleep. The only thing different I've seen is active updates, which is cool, but I guess macs need to update more than Windows if that has to be a new feature. Windows 8 just reminds you a bit, installs them, and doesn't nag you about restarting unless if it's a serious security issue.

What's worse than that is people are gobbling this up! It's absurd! The "new" macbook only two new things about it, a superfluously high resolution screen that many visual formats I've seen don't go to, and a ridiculously high price of 2,000 dollars. That in itself is the reason why Windows ALWAYS wins the battle. Sure, mac users can upgrade for 20 dollars, but you have to pay at least 1,200 dollars before that. Buy a Windows PC for about 5-600 dollars, it can cost between 60-200 dollars. Right now with a new PC, it's 15.

I don't know, I continue to believe the apple culture is a close copy of communism we have today....

 

[BillWindows]

Yes but people don't like communism, yet they Love Apple. For years they've been saying they wouldn't like anything bigger on their iPhones and yet when the rumours are that they're getting a 4" screen, all of a sudden it's a great size, a weird mob.

 

[Coke Robot]

Speaking of apple (I'm on a bit of an apple tirade) in retrospect, you could analyze apple's 1984 commercial differently now. Back then, the runner represented apple breaking people free of IBM, but today; that runner can symbolize the Windows PC breaking apple followers free from apple. It's interesting how tables have turned, apple believed that IBM users were controlled by a higher elite with cloned machines that had no soul or spirit or anything they can make their own, only to turn out to produce devices that really have no soul, little spirit and definitely something you can't make your own except for the wallpaper background. mac os is a boring, overdone, bland operating system that makes Windows look vibrant.

I guess in the end, Windows will always win the battle because of that, it's YOUR personal computer, whether it be a desktop from a manufacturer or one you built, a laptop, slate, AIO, touch AIO, convertible, netbook or an ultrabook.

 

[BillWindows]

Windows gives you choice, like you said, Apple gives you nothing. I bought a Macintosh many years ago, I've never been so bored in my life, it still brings a tear to my eye.
The Commodore Amiga was the best system for a long time, but they lost the blue prints to their own chips, by the time they reverse engineered them, the world had passed them by.
So then I bought a 486dx266 with Windows 3.11 and DOS, but I spent most of the time in DOS.

 

[fafhrd]

One thing about the changeover to Windows 95 was that overall speed really did not improve. You could guarantee that by the time your coffee was ready, your system would be too. It was still refreshing to open WordPerfect 5.2 for the speed of response, and the "reveal codes" feature showed exactly why your document was not behaving as expected when printed. MS Word never had that level of control over the document.

What wasn't so nice was the number of viruses that were passed around on floppy disks* which were the main route of exchange of data and documents for many. Dr Solomon was our friend, and Microsoft has MSAV, but it never really promised the same protection or comfort as the third party offerings, and was quietly discontinued at about the same time Windows 95, and CD-ROMs and networks hit the streets, personal computing magazines, and offices. Shortly afterwards, there was the internet to feed our demand for free utilities, and updates against malware.

*What I cannot understand about floppy disks was that they worked more-or-less reliably in those days - these days it is hard to find one in ten floppies that are either readable, or will take a full format - perhaps the viruses kept them viable...

 

[lehnerus2000]

The Commodore Amiga was the best system for a long time, but they lost the blue prints to their own chips, by the time they reverse engineered them, the world had passed them by.

They had shoddy quality control too.
Every one that my friends had, used to literally chew up floppy discs.
You had to make a half a dozen backups of anything you wanted to use more than a few times.
We never had one with a HDD though.

The games were awesome.
We used to have Stunt Car Racer and Populous parties (serial linked Amigas).

 

[BillWindows]

The Commodore Amiga was the best system for a long time, but they lost the blue prints to their own chips, by the time they reverse engineered them, the world had passed them by.

They had shoddy quality control too.
Every one that my friends had, used to literally chew up floppy discs.
You had to make a half a dozen backups of anything you wanted to use more than a few times.
We never had one with a HDD though.

The games were awesome.
We used to have Stunt Car Racer and Populous parties (serial linked Amigas).

I had the Amiga 2000 with a 50Mb hdd, boy that was an amazing machine, there wasn't much the Amiga couldn't do, they even made movies with it. It was way ahead of its time with 64,000 colors and midi music etc. I've got Prince of Persia on my iPad 3, it looks the same as the one I had on the old Amiga all those years ago.

 

[SIW2]

I don't own any Apple products.

They do seem to have a very effective reality distortion campaign.

 

[FSeal]

Moving from 3.11 to 95 was COMPLETELY AWESOME in every way. That was a /massive/ update in functionality, stability and visual improvements and UI. It was probably the very best single OS upgrade of any kind in the entire chain of windows upgrades. 9x/nt to XP was second, also a very awesome upgrade.

DOS to Win3.1 was hard. It just took a long LONG time for people to write the Windows applications. Lots of people actually bypassed Windows 3.1 for at least a year or two until there were Windows versions of nearly everything I needed to do. And Windows 3.x didn't REALLY go big till windows 3.11 came out.

Going METRO remands me a lot of going BACKWARDS to the Windows 3.1 days and using full screen DOS apps actually. Been there, Done that, Not sorry to see that completely disappear. Not happy it's coming back at all!

 

[crawfish]

Moving from 3.11 to 95 was COMPLETELY AWESOME in every way.

Windows 95 was launched at midnight and stores across the country were packed with people, some having waited in line to get it.

Going METRO remands me a lot of going BACKWARDS to the Windows 3.1 days and using full screen DOS apps actually. Been there, Done that, Not sorry to see that completely disappear. Not happy it's coming back at all!

Well, yes.

 

[Coke Robot]

I don't own any Apple products.

They do seem to have a very effective reality distortion campaign.

More like an effective brainwashing campaign....

 

[Coke Robot]

I think the metro aspect of Windows kind of makes me think of full circle turnaround for Microsoft and going back to the roots of their design. It's been done kind of, but not exactly.

 

[Rickkins]

I remember the release of win95, people were lined up around the block at many stores to await the midnight release of the product.(I was not one of them) Took me a few weeks to eventually grab it, but I remember feeling that it was a vast improvement over 3.11. Took some getting used to, but one felt it was a step forward.