Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-out-of-the-teens dept.

It was twenty years ago yesterday (August 24, 2015) that Windows 95 was introduced, says El Reg.

Windows 95 was a great success, despite not being the most stable of operating systems. Microsoft's own Windows NT 3.1, released two years earlier, was built on stronger foundations, but high system requirements and lack of compatibility with many DOS applications and games made it unsuitable for consumers. Windows 95 was better in both respects, running in as little as 4MB of RAM – though painfully, with 8MB a more realistic minimum – and retaining DOS complete with 16-bit device driver support.

At the time, most PCs ran Windows 3.1 or 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups), and IBM was pushing OS/2 as a "better Windows than Windows". Windows 95 was a considerable improvement on Windows 3.x, with pre-emptive multitasking, mostly 32-bit code, and plug and play hardware detection. There was also new support for "portable computers", with a battery indicator on the taskbar and the ability to suspend the system without turning it off completely.

Perhaps what I'm going to say will be controversial, but I'm of the opinion that Windows 95 is the greatest software engineering feat ever, given the challenge Microsoft faced at that time. Unlike Apple, which continues to make its own computers, Microsoft did not and, therefore, had to do a vast amount of testing in order to ensure that Windows 95 would work on most existing 32-bit Intel machines.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:20PM (#227628)

    OS/2 was superior to Windows 95 in almost every respect.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=1, Informative=4, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:25PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @03:25PM (#227632)

    Except the two that won the market: drivers and software support...
    Oh, and that pesky "installed for you at the PC's factory" stroke of genius.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:16PM (#227742)

      Is that what you call it when someone breaks the law?

      It has long been in the law that it is a criminal act to specify that *you must buy this in order to get that*. [google.com]

      The fact that that law isn't enforced demonstrates that the Facists have complete control of the system.

      One Microsoft Way reminds me of a great scene with Jack Nicholson's character, Bobby Dupea, trying to order the meal he wants. [google.com]
      https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Five_Easy_Pieces#Dialogue [wikiquote.org]

      -- gewg_

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 25 2015, @09:45PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @09:45PM (#227802)

        Remember the legal technicality "if you do not agree with the EULA, do not use it and you can return it"?
        I did not specify the kind of Genius involved. I just pointed out that Mr Gates wasn't just enjoying sheer dumb luck.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 25 2015, @10:32PM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @10:32PM (#227822) Journal

          yep, tried this once, Seems that if I wanted to return the operating system, I was required to return the laptop it was installed on as well! So, yes, illegal conspiracy and collusion. Micro$oft single-handedly set back computing tech by at least 20 years.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by mojo chan on Wednesday August 26 2015, @08:32AM

        by mojo chan (266) on Wednesday August 26 2015, @08:32AM (#228011)

        While I agree that it's annoying to be forced to buy Windows with many new PCs, I can also understand why shops are so reluctant to sell machines without an OS. I used to work in one, and while we did sell machines sans-OS we also had quite a lot of people complain that their new PC didn't work and then get upset when told it would cost then an extra £65 for Windows, as if we were trying to scam them by advertising an incomplete machine to make it look cheap and competitive with Dell.

        Even when you did sell them a machine with Windows on it they would complain that Word and Excel were not there. A lot of people just assumed that MS Office was part of Windows. I mean, what use is a PC that you can't write letters on? It's a basic feature of computers, right? So we put Open Office on as standard, and Chrome so that they were not infected within moments of going online. People still didn't get it though, until we started renaming the OO apps to "Word" and "Excel", and the Chrome icon to "Internet". Seriously.

        Sadly people buying computers more often than not just expect Windows and Office to be there. That's what a computer is to them, Windows and Office.

        --
        const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @07:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @07:54PM (#228237)

          So then, giving a customer a plastic disk (or a thumbdrive) which contains an OS that can be booted to a completely usable desktop--including dozens or even hundreds of useful apps like an office suite--and configuring the machine being sold so that by default it will go to that drive (or port) and present that usable desktop sounds quite useful.

          The fact that it will display an INSTALL THIS TO YOUR HARD DRIVE icon on the desktop also sounds quite useful.

          The fact that the customer can go back to that plastic disk|thumbdrive and still get online to go to your company's site, or the hardware manufacturer's site, or the distro's help forum, or elsewhere EVEN WHEN "THE COMPUTER IS BROKEN" also sounds quite useful.

          Now, throw in the fact that that wonderfully useful OS costs $0.
          Now, preinstall the $0 OS.

          In contrast, the installation of a stripped-down payware EULAware MICROS~1 OS sounds quite lame.[1]
          The fact that Redmond makes things purposely difficult WRT their install media so that you won't pirate their wares compounds the lameness.
          ...and in recent years M$ was giving incentives to whitebox builders to NOT include install media AT ALL with a hardware sale.
          I understand that M$ has finally achieved what they consider to be Nirvana WRT to that no-install-media-included paradigm.
          To me, that's the ultimate in lameness.

          The reason vendors stick with M$ is the opportunity to upsell (stuff like anti-virus and other payware apps).

          ...and with Windoze there's even more money to be made on service calls after the warranty expires and Windoze continues to crap itself or the Malware Magnet gets infected again and again.

          .
          ...and, after the court case where MSFT was prosecuted for requiring that whitebox vendors pay for a copy of Windoze for every box that vendor shipped--even when Redmond's OS wasn't installed on that box, vendors started offering the customer actual options like just shipping a $0 FreeDOS disk with the hardware.

          You're going to have a hard time convincing me that The M$ Way is superior compared to the $0 software which has been available to whitebox vendors for many many years.
          As has already been said, M$ set back personal computing for decades.

          [1] ...and years ago when the EU court mandated that customers be given a choice of browsers, MANY folks chose to avoid the MICROS~1 app.

          -- gewg_

    • (Score: 2) by hamsterdan on Wednesday August 26 2015, @01:43AM

      by hamsterdan (2829) on Wednesday August 26 2015, @01:43AM (#227909)

      That and the fact it ran 3.x apps so well, writers had no incentive of building both a W95 *AND* OS/2 version. (that and it required a beefier machine than W95)

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by SomeGuy on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:01PM

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:01PM (#227647)

    From a technical perspective, yes OS/2 was "superior". It (2.x and later anyway) was a true 32-bit operating system like Unix, Linux, and Windows NT.

    But from a practical standpoint, it didn't run enough of the software people needed. Or if it could run their software, it required extra hassle.

    I remember around 1995 or early 96 dealing with an office IBM P90 computer that originally came pre-loaded with OS/2. The office IT had wiped that and installed Windows 3.1 so the users could use the software they NEEDED. And the office IT had not even bothered to install the machines VGA or sound drivers (which I had to clean up), and yet this was still "better" than OS/2 because they could do the work they were required to do. The users were even more happy when we finally got Windows 95 on it.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:59PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:59PM (#227672)

      It's the oldest IT problem in the book: Technical perfection versus "How hard is it to do my (non-technical) job?"

      From the point of view of users, the occasional crash and stupid modal confirmation dialog boxes were relatively small prices to pay for something they could actually work with. Whereas if you'd given them an OS/2, Mac, or Unix box, good luck with that.

      But from the point of view of the tech people, Win95 was a nightmare, because it could so easily run things it shouldn't and could not be easily fixed when something went wrong (which it would).

      I strongly disagree with the notion that it was the greatest software engineering feat ever, though: The greatest software engineering feat I can think of is the creation of the C programming language, because 43 years later we're still using it or one of its descendants for the vast majority of critical software across all major platforms. It's basically impossible to find a computing device that is *not* running something written in C. No other software tool has come even close to matching that level of widespread use and longevity.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:23PM (#227746)

        If you don't *start* with a security model, what you end up with is a mess.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:28PM (#227751)

          And even then you are not guaranteed success.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:03PM (#227676)

      >But from a practical standpoint, it didn't run enough of the software people needed.
      >Or if it could run their software, it required extra hassle.

      This is exactly the situation that Linux is in today. Wine will run some Windows software, but maybe not.

      BTW - I still think that OS/2 had the best user interface of any operating system I've used. Presentation Manager made it easy to modify features so that it worked for me rather than for some marketing team in another part of the world.

      I never used Win95 - I went from Win3.1 to OS/2 to NT. Now I only use Linux.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:24PM (#227685)

      From a publisher POV OS/2 was a non starter.

      The kit to develop was *expensive*. Think 5 digits per developer expensive vs MS 500-2k per dev. Then on top of that it 'ran everything else'. Which means I could target win95/3.1 and hit 99% of the market AND OS2.

      I worked in a couple of companies and remember the meetings of 'do we develop a special version for OS2'. The answer was always no as there was a very small market for it. Though the market that was there was willing to pony up big bucks.

      Early versions of OS2 were also notoriously picky on what they could be installed on (much like NT3). I underclocked many computers to get that sucker just to install. And doing the 20 disk shuffle on an under clocked computer was not fun.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by canopic jug on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:45PM

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:45PM (#227697) Journal

      But from a practical standpoint, it didn't run enough of the software people needed.

      Back when the courts had teeth to enforce antitrust remedies, IBM was prohibited from making both the hardware and software. IBM had a deal with M$ where IBM and M$ would collaborate on the OS and that M$ would be ready with user software. M$ told IBM at the last minute that they were reneging on the deal and had used the time to produce software for their OS instead. There was not time for IBM to dig up an alternate producer for user software. Then to complicate the future of OS/2, some of the copyrights were shared with M$ so that added its own set of problems. So it wasn't just a 'mysterious' shortage of applications that hindered the technologically superior OS/2, it was getting stabbed in the back by Bill which created much of that barrier.

      Then there was the vaporware issue. M$ gave the impression, and the trade magazines helped spread the rumor, that M$ was almost ready with something comparable and that everyone should hold off. That also hurt OS/2 since M$ didn't have anything for years and it kept people from buying OS/2. Also, though I'm not sure of the timing, M$ was probably still at the time getting the illegal per-processor fees for all microcomputers sold.

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:29PM (#227769)

        Back when the courts had teeth to enforce antitrust remedies

        They have always had them; since Reagan, however, they have chosen to use them sparingly.
        The revolving door doesn't work for DoJ employees if they make life difficult for potential future employers.

        IBM was prohibited from making both the hardware and software

        No. The fact that IBM eventually produced and marketed OS/2 by themselves shows this to be false.
        IBM was forbidden from -excluding- competitors to their own software.
        M$ appeared to be a convenience to Big Blue. Heh.

        Going back further:
        M$'s DOS 1.0 was offered at $60; IBM priced Digital Research's CP/M-86 at $240.
        For the average consumer, the effect was the same as if IBM had produced its own software:
        From the start, the IBM PC had a single supplier of its OS.
        This was further solidified by whitebox clone vendors and M$'s extremely non-linear bulk pricing.

        IBM had a deal with M$

        ...where IBM handed over the keys to its kingdom.

        The employees of Boca Raton facility that produced the PC had no clue about the existing personal computer industry.
        It seems pretty clear they didn't read the publications pertinent to that field and weren't aware of who all was producing stuff--specifically software--within that nascent market.

        ...and IBM's final brilliant move was to build PS/2 boxes incorporating their not-backwards-compatible MicroChannel Architecture bus.
        Everybody else in the PC-compatible supply chain went with EISA (Extended ISA, a $0 "intellectual property" alternative that -was- backwards-compatible) and offered lower cost stuff that consumers swooped on.

        PCI, another standard, came along soon afterwards.
        MCA was a loser.
        Having never even tried to get into the desktop software business, it wasn't so long before IBM was out of the desktop hardware business too.

        M$ told IBM at the last minute that they were reneging on the deal

        Finding a M$ partner that does NOT have a knife in its back requires quite an effort.

        and had used the time to produce software for their OS instead

        ...with "their OS" being a GUI that rode on top of DOS for several years.

        -- gewg_

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:50PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @04:50PM (#227670)

    I agree, OS/2 ran almost everything I needed and was much better than Windows.

    In early '95 Microsoft announced their next Windows would be released by the end of the year. I'd been running OS/2 for a while by then and figured IBM had a year to convince folks it was a great OS. Went to Comdex that January, made a beeline for the IBM booth, and started asking OS/2 questions. Nobody in the booth knew what OS/2 was. Told them it was an OS for PCs, got blank looks and comments like "we don't make anything like that".

    That's when I knew OS/2 was doomed. Killed by IBM idiocy.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @05:05PM (#227678)

      Operating systems, explained:

      OS/2 - designed by geniuses, marketed by idiots
      Windows - designed by idiots, marketed by geniuses
      Apple - designed by geniuses, marketed to idiots
      Linux - designed by idiots who think they're geniuses, marketed?...bwahahahaha!!
      Android - designed by BORG*, marketed by BORG, fuck it we're all screwed!

      *Big 'Orrible Rapacious Google.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:21PM (#227766)

        Every time someone posts a note that hints of criticism of Linux, even in jest, it gets flagged as a troll.

        Someone has very thin skin.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @08:45PM (#227778)

          Perhaps it was the "marketed by geniuses" allusion.

          It wouldn't surprise me to find many here who would note that that slot should be filled with "marketed by convicted criminals".

          ...and when exactly did Sweaty get promoted to genius?

          -- gewg_

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by mendax on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:01PM

    by mendax (2840) on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:01PM (#227734)

    Let me clarify what I wrote in the submission. I did not say that Windows 95 was the best operating system, nor was it superior to others. Rather, I said it was the greatest feat of software engineering because of the huge task Microsoft faced in making it work. Indeed, I agree that OS/2 was superior. Windows 95 was a kludge, but it sure was a successful one.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
  • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday August 26 2015, @09:43AM

    by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday August 26 2015, @09:43AM (#228032) Journal
    And the almost basically means 'excluding cost'. OS/2 needed more RAM than Windows 95 (a little bit less than NT, but NT wasn't a mass-market success until XP) and cost a lot more. I remember bare-bones machines charging £50 more to ship with Windows 95 OEM or £100 more for OS/2 OEM. At retail, the price difference was even more. Going the OS/2 route could easily add 10-20% to the price of a new computer.
    --
    sudo mod me up