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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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_