'Why I Still Use Windows 95' - (and IE4...) ?

Why I Still Use Windows 95
andrew-turnbull.net �
Theoperating system I currently use on my primary computer is Windows 95OSR2. Furthermore, not only do I use Windows 95 extensively, but Iprefer it to Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, and Vista.

this is stupid, a lot of what that guy said is not true.  for example, win98 is NOT eyecandy, and w/e it does have that would be considered that can be turned off.  win95 is not good for everyday tasks.  is it suitable to do so?  sometimes, but a newer os would be much better, even if its 98.  and how is the whole "3d" look annoying?  not only would be insignificantly take up disk space and ram, but it helps you actually see whats the boarder of something.  and, from what i remember, win98 was under 700mb.  big whoop, 200+mb for a LOT more features, stability, and functionality.  if you're that cheap, go with linux and use a live cd every time you start up your computer - at least that way you take up no space at all.

as for his complaint about programs such as firefox working on a newer os, maybe he just needs to get into the new ages and just buy a new computer.  it would not surprise me that hes using a newer os on something that isn't even 1ghz.  this guy needs to learn to think - FIREFOX IS DESIGNED FOR MODERN COMPUTERS.  obviously it'll run slow if you run it on something that wasn't designed for something THAT new.

with his whole comment on security and stability, one of the greatest complaints about the first win95 that came out was it was very INSECURE, which results in instability.  win98 was considered so great because it was so much more stable and well designed.  win95 was the first os of its kind for MS, you HAVE to expect problems with it.  if this guy were to do as much tweaking and fixing with win98 or any other os as he did with 95, he'd get the exact amount of stability and security as he would with 95 but probably with less work, making his comments void.

i can understand his whole native feeling argument, but 1 thing that just plain makes no sense is why can't he just make the emulator fullscreen?  that way, its like he really IS running DOS.  Again, his point is void.

i couldn't tell if he was kidding or not in the next paragraph.  even in the NT based OSes, if you're running IE and type "c:\", a file browser in explorer will run and replace IE.  works the same way if you type in a website in explorer.  Again, this guy just doesn't think.  and who really gives a crap about those "essential tools".  ever heard of right clicking?  And how is forward, back, and favorites awkward?  first of all, they're optional.  secondly, its for a different type of organization, and apparently it worked well since the old fashioned tree idea (which i'm assuming is what he finds is better) is no longer used for regular file and website browsing whereas these buttons are.  to comment on the last sentence, win98 has columns as well as every other os with menus, so idk where hes getting that from.  instead of alphabetical order, its made in order of installed date, which is easier to navigate.  and unlike win95, you can edit the menus yourself so they are in alphabetical order.  also, the scroll arrows are NOT slow on a NORMAL computer DESIGNED for the os and they're for organization, which again, is proven effective since the idea is still being used today.

i'm completely fine with people using win95, but the reasons this guy gave are just plain wrong or stupid, or invalid.i don't mean to be this critical, but this is just ignorance.

Schmidt I disagree. I find the points raised quite vaild. I personally went from 95 to 98 then got a new machine & went back to 95 ( about the time ME crashed & burned ) I found it to be stable IMHO more so than 98 at the time. Having recently shifted from XP to Visa I can feel his pain. The constant need M$soft have to reinvent the wheel with every release makes me want to go postal. Rather than make it a logical progression from one OS to the next it's a random reassigning of elements for the sake of looking new. The start menu & control bar are the two culprits I'm looking at. Using vista only for gaming & coming from OSX the sheer disorder & inelegance makes my blood boil. Honestly how much of the new system do you really use ? Compare the functionality of older versions with current & think about all the bloat that is a major problem for M$oft programs. I can see & agree why a user would want to stay with what is safe & works. If it ain't broke ( or more likely the case if it breaks it more ) don't mess with it.

Schmidt I disagree. I find the points raised quite vaild. I personally went from 95 to 98 then got a new machine & went back to 95 ( about the time ME crashed & burned ) I found it to be stable IMHO more so than 98 at the time. Having recently shifted from XP to Visa I can feel his pain. The constant need M$soft have to reinvent the wheel with every release makes me want to go postal. Rather than make it a logical progression from one OS to the next it's a random reassigning of elements for the sake of looking new. The start menu & control bar are the two culprits I'm looking at. Using vista only for gaming & coming from OSX the sheer disorder & inelegance makes my blood boil. Honestly how much of the new system do you really use ? Compare the functionality of older versions with current & think about all the bloat that is a major problem for M$oft programs. I can see & agree why a user would want to stay with what is safe & works. If it ain't broke ( or more likely the case if it breaks it more ) don't mess with it.

I wouldn't say you're wrong. When you said you preferred 95 over 98, I'm assuming at that time, you weren't using 98SE and you preferred 95b. The updated versions of both OSes are significantly better than their first release. I completely agree with you on the Vista thing, everything you said about that is completely true. Although Vista isn't good for gaming at all, you need far too powerful of a computer for it. I use XP and Linux, I wouldn't keep an install of Vista if someone gave it to me. But like I said, I don't think Windows 95 is bad or people using it is bad but every reason that guy came up with was so wrong, and I felt I proved my point fairly well.