5 ms·
andrew turnbull is completely right. i used windows 95 too, as long as possible (2006). windows 95 has many good things that the modern version of windows have
by toki 18y ago
andrew turnbull is completely right. i used windows 95 too, as long as possible (2006).
windows 95 has many good things that the modern version of windows have lost or never had:
- lightweight (Doesnt even use memory <128 MB)
- very fast
- total cost of ownership = 0
- functional (office, opera, etc: everything works somehow)
- easily replaceable (ebay)
- robust (works even with damaged hardware - somehow)
- security (through obscurity)
- i have an idea how it works (in modern version of windows i have somehow lost the overview)
- no need to update (just accept how the system is)
- free of distractions (no widgets, sidebars, audoupdates)
:)
- toki 18y agooops: hackernews somehow didnt like the layout of my last comment and made one big sentence out of it. just use your imagination to see some paragraphs in my last message. :)
- gscott 18y agoThe changes that MS makes now seem to be just for selling new versions. I use Windows 2000, it is handy, no Internet registration scheme where they track your usage, and so on. When I was younger I wanted to run the newst thing out there and would change often. Now I stick with whatever works best until it breaks.
- nailer 18y agoI've read that the 95 kernel fits in the CPU cache of current Intel CPUs.
- workpost 18y agoGreat points, actually. I was running it in Virtual PC recently and marveled at how incredibly few resources it used. I was surprised by how much software I could get to run on it as well.