Talk:Windows 95
|
|
Where did the October 13 date come from? Windows 95 was in fact released to the public 24 Aug 1995, I remember because my birthday is the 23rd and I lined up that midnight.
An event mentioned in this article is an August 24 selected anniversary.
Does 95 run on 386SX processors? --AW
- No, at least officially as Tannin seems to say something else. I didn't try it was slow enough on 386DX.
Ericd 11:50, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Primary source, I can attest to people lining up in queues to buy Windows 95.
--alan d
Yes, Virginia ... er .. I mean Adam ... it runs just fine on a 386SX of any speed. Load a 386SX-16 up with 8MB of RAM, press the power button, shave, take a shower, get dressed, comb your hair, and it's right there at the desktop ready and waiting for you already. (Don't laugh, I've worked on machines configured like that.) Tannin 11:22 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)
Intel's SX chips were horrendously slow rip-offs. If you've got a 386 laying around, replace the SX chip with an AMD 386DX40 - it's far faster.
Now, that screenshot: is that of Windows 95? It looks more like Win98 or a version of Win95 with IE4's gui hacks.
- Heaps faster, yes. Pin-compatible, not even close. A 386SX runs on a 16-bit board - essentially a 286 board with a BIOS tweak. A 386DX uses a 32-bit board which is essentially the same as a 486 board but with a different socket. Many boards of the era (notably those based on the OPTi 895 chipset, but others too) were "universal" - i.e., they could take a 386DX, 486DLC, 486SX, or 486DX.
- Win95C had IE 4.0 as standard. (Which is why is was so slow and buggy.) 95B had IE 3.0, 95A had neither. It's probably a 95C in the screenshot. Tannin 17:18 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
The NPOV'ing of the comparison between NT kernels and the kernel used in Windows 95 is good intentioned, but a bit extreme. There are virtually no people who believe that Windows 95 had a superior kernel. The superiority of NT kernels is obvious to anyone who used Windows 95/98/ME and Windows NT/2000/XP. -- cprompt 01:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
MSIE and Win95
I have a question about this line:
Later editions of Windows 95 came with Internet Explorer 3, then Internet Explorer 4 preinstalled.
Wasn't there a Win95 that came preinstalled with IE5? I would add it, but I am not sure. -iHoshie 16:50, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe there was, but Windows 98 Second Edition came with IE5. At least I'm pretty sure. — El Chico! Talk 17:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Win95 on 1995?
Sorry but I've always though win95 was release on 1996. Well maybe 10 years has make deep holes in my mind.
Regards
- I'm almost sure that Windows 95 was originally planned for 1993 (although without Win32s). The original 95 was indeed released in 1995. Because of very serious flaws, a Service Pack 1 was released. A later edition had SP1 integrated, 95A, released in early 1996. Later in 1996, it had more 98-like features with 95B. --Mike 00:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
MS-DOS
I've greatly edited this paragraph:
- Windows 95 ran on MS-DOS 6.22 (and later releases on MS-DOS 7.0), which was included (but generally hidden from the user). Windows 95 was the first Windows product to be tied to a specific version of DOS; this was seen as a way to leverage the dominant position Windows 3.1 had established in the GUI market and ensure that no non-Microsoft product would be able to provide the underlying operating system services.
First, Windows 95 never ran on dos 6.22, at all, period. MS-DOS 7 was never aproduct it's just the version of the command line shell. Second, Windows and DOS7 weren't "tied" to "leverage" so that a non-MS product could provide the "underlying operating system services". That's bogus by any understanding of the Win95 boot strap process.
I'm making other changes at the same time. I doubt they'll be controversial, but that large edit may be. SchmuckyTheCat 23:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Xerox PARC
An anon IP added a lot of text about Win95 realizing the dreams of some PARC engineers. Its useful text, but I'm not sure it belongs where it does. SchmuckyTheCat 02:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Friendly, but vehement disagreement
User:SchmuckyTheCat I made the edits to this article. I don't see how my changes cannot be considered completely germaine. Therefore, I am re-introducing them. I don't know why my moniker, PainMan didn't show up; I had no intention of hiding behind anonymity. (I am new at this.) Engelbart's work and Xerox PARC's development of said work are directly related to all subsequent GUI development and any article discussing their most commercially, if not technologically, successful "descendant" is incomplete with their mention. They must go back in. PainMan 14:11, 14 May 2005
- We already cover this stuff elsewhere. Graphical user interface Why is it crucial that it be added to the Windows 95 article? If it belongs on Windows 95, then it just as equally belongs on Windows 1.0 and Mac OS. AlistairMcMillan 14:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
If iteration of critical information in more than one place is a sin, then Wikkipedia's got a serious problem; indeed, it throws the whole concept of cross-indexing out the window. If you know little or nothing about Engelbart and PARC, you might never discover it if you didn't check the articles on Win 1x, etc. Newbies or the uniformed can use the information I've added to obtain a fuller understanding of GUI evolution. I fail to see the logic behind the objection to this. PainMan 15:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- This stuff is mentioned elsewhere. It deserves a link, not the entire focus of the second paragraph of the article. The contributions of hundreds of msft engineers who directly did GUI work isn't in this article, and many of them have wikipedia articles. By your reasoning, Requiem for a Dream needs to go on at length about Herodotus.
- And the other edit, about Win95 being a 16 bit OS with a 32 bit emulation layer is absolute nonsense.
- I reverted the whole thing. If you'd like to add a sentence with a link to this guy at some point (probably not the introduction) it'd probably be better recieved by the other editors. SchmuckyTheCat 15:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the whole thing. If you'd like to add a sentence with a link to this guy at some point (probably not the introduction) it'd probably be better recieved by the other editors. SchmuckyTheCat 15:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what this means. I'd appreciate if you'd 'splain. If I've violated protocol, it's a result of ignorance, not malice or tendentiousness.
:And the other edit, about Win95 being a 16 bit OS with a 32 bit emulation layer is absolute nonsense.
I'm not an engineer, but I've heard from too many who are, people whom I'm certainly not going to mention by name without their permission, given the behemoth of Redmond's reputation. So we're going to have to agree to disagree there. I also added a qualifier to it that I believe was sufficient to show that it is a contentious point.
And my edits are going back in as I consider them to be essential information. One of the biggest flaws in engineer-think, something I had the opportunity to observe at close hand for years, is the assumption that everyone knows what engineers know. Hardly true. Many will come to this without having worked in IT as you and I have.
PainMan 15:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- There is no reason to duplicate the content that already exists on graphical user interface. AlistairMcMillan 16:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Going against Lord Bill's writ is apparently not to be tolerated.
Again, I accept defeat. I accept my contributions are clearly not desired in matters of importance. It's nothing new. Been on the outside looking it for so long, my breath has started to stain the glass.
The most endangered species: the honest man...
--Neil Peart, Natural Science, from Permanent Waves.
PainMan 16:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
If people aren't interested in my contributions
This controversy isn't worth making enemies to me. If people aren't interested in my addition to this, so be it. I accept defeat.
Apparently, there are cliques within this avowedly "open" community and I'm not welcome. I get the hint.
It remains to be seen if my views, when deviating from orthodoxy, will be tolerated at all here. I had hoped this would be different than the NYTimes or Yahoo! chatboards. I appear to have made a grievous error. It saddens me. But I'm used to rejection.
My contributions--if tolerated at all--are apparently to be confined to the ephemeral. I've noticed, for instance, that my addition to the article on Arrakis has drawn no attention whatsoever, let alone such contention.
Since I still hope there can be a place here for me, I'm not going to do anything to give anyone ammunition to eliminate me from the "community."
Perhaps someone would be so kind as to tell me whom I must placate to be taken seriously here. Once again, I overestimate my fellow bipeds.
So be it.
Again, Mr. McMillan, thanks for your time.
PainMan 16:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- No one is stopping you contributing. I'm sorry you first major contribution here has caused problems, but discussing the history of the GUI belongs on the GUI page, not on the Windows 95 page. AlistairMcMillan 16:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- Anybody who has studied the Windows 95 kernel architecture would laugh at the idea it's a 16 bit OS. It's absolutely preposterous. For backwards compatibility there is some 16/32 bit hybridization code left over from WfWg, and that's pretty much restricted to GDI code, and was re-written in assembly. Wikipedia isn't a mouthpiece for uninformed detractors, nor for rumour and innuendo. If you want to insert this 16 bit stuff, source it to someone qualified to say so. SchmuckyTheCat 16:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
No need to beat a dead horse, Schmucky. No need to "ply the thong with extra vigor." I accept defeat and rejection. You're clearly going to win; if there's one thing I've learned in 34 years, it's when to raise the white flag. It's so raised. PainMan 16:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, betaing not intended, that was written while other edits were on the page. (it's a wiki, sometimes things are fast and furious). See my entry on your talk page. I don't want to bite the newcomer! SchmuckyTheCat 16:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Infobox image
I think the image in the infobox should be the logo of Windows 95, the image currently in the infobox can be used somewhere else in the article. -- Eagleamn 08:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)