Why I Still Use Windows 95 article

Soldato
Joined
12 Jun 2005
Posts
6,359
Location
St Albans
Article.

Andrew Turnbull said:
The operating system I currently use on my primary computer is Windows 95 OSR2. Furthermore, not only do I use Windows 95 extensively, but I prefer it to Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, and Vista.

Yes, I am aware that this puts me in a position not shared by many other people today. I wouldn't be surprised if the proportion of people still using Windows 95 on a regular basis is ½% or less. And, I am accustomed to getting strange or uncomplementary reactions from other people when they find out that I still do: "Are you insane?" or "Why the hell are you using Windows 95?!" are only typical. I can no longer count on most of the latest software being capable of running on this configuration. So, why do I still endorse a computer operating system more than ten years old?

First of all, a computer is a tool. It is a principal of mine that if a tool works well and satisfies my wants and needs, there is no reason to replace it; regardless of mere age. On that note, I have traditionally been the last using any given piece of computer software on occasions before: I used Windows 3.1x semi-regularly on my Gateway 2000 486 as late as mid-2003, when I had a practical need to turn to a newer computer for regular tasks and be capable of running 32-bit programs. Windows 95 is far more technologically sophisticated and viable than Windows 3.1x.

Second of all, for a variety of reasons I have a major aversion to Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 and higher: I do not want to use it and I do not want it present in any form on any computer I own. With Windows 98, Microsoft needlessly integrated Internet Explorer 4.01 (or later 5.0) into features that were ostensibly parts of the operating system itself: The Explorer shell interface and Windows Help both display their contents in Internet Explorer windows complete with a browser-like throbber in the corner, with the browser difficult if not impossible to completely remove. This dubious practice has continued into all subsequent versions of Windows to date. By contrast, it is not difficult to completely remove or circumvent the preinstallation of Internet Explorer from Windows 95 OSR2, and the earliest versions (though less stable and less capable than OSR2) didn't include IE at all.

Windows 95 is reasonably fast in performance, and is not compromised by the arguably frivolous animation and eye candy features in Windows 98 and newer versions: Sliding or fading menus, gradient title bars, "flat" toolbars, and menus that annoyingly take on the 3D appearance of command buttons when moving the mouse over or selecting them but to name a few examples. There are no "activation" schemes, and the OS installed takes up well under 500MB.

Currently there is no hardware or software I need or desire to use that is not capable of running on Windows 95. I can run even Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird in a pinch. Most of the applications I have found that do require Windows 98 or higher, meanwhile, tend to be incidentally plagued by having slow performance, a poor interface design (such as with the newest versions of Windows Media Player and RealPlayer), and/or no compelling functionality not present in an earlier version. In any case, the APIs of Windows 95 OSR2 and Windows 98 are virtually identical, and there is no good reason for any software capable of running on one not to work on the other as well. With my browser and e-mail client, Office 97, WordPerfect 7, and a few graphic tools I can be as productive as I like with Windows 95.

While I freely concede that Windows NT 4.0, 2000, and XP are much more stable than Windows 95, I also maintain that Windows 95 OSR2 is the most stable DOS-based version of Windows to be released, moreso than Windows 98 and especially the buggy mess that was Windows ME. It is substantially more stable and handles system resources more efficiently than Windows 3.1x as well.

I prefer to have as much native compatibility as possible with DOS applications such as older games I own. While it is possible to run these from Windows 2000 or XP either natively or (as circumstances may very well require) through an emulator, I prefer to have the real thing.

Finally, Windows 95 has an intuitive user interface I prefer to the IE-integrated monstrosities of Windows 98 and subsequent versions. Windows 95's Explorer uses OS-native controls and menus, has all the most essential tools—such as file-delete and individual icon-view controls—on the toolbar, does not waste space with oversized toolbar controls or needless left-hand icon-and-caption panels, and doesn't contain unnecessary Internet Explorer tie-ins such as awkward "back" and "forward" file navigation or a "Favorites" menu. The Start menu automatically sorts folders and files alphabetically automatically, and defaults to a multi-column view instead of Windows 98's slow and inconvenient scroll arrows.

I don't expect my reasoning to be representative for everyone, of course, and I have sometimes been tempted to switch to a different version of Windows myself (specifically NT 4.0 or 2000) or even abandon Windows entirely a number of times. However, I have justifiable reasons for my decisions, and will continue using Windows 95 OSR2 as my primary OS for the forseeable future until I can no longer run a relatively up-to-date web browser or absolutely must use a piece of hardware or software not compatible with Windows 95.

My view, he's an idiot. Just because everything he needs 'works' doesn't mean the things he does in 95 an be done on another operating system much easier and efficiently. I also love his opinions on all software not capable of running under 95 is slow and has a poor interface! Your thoughts?
 
Agreed, he is a idiot! I really doubt he has used any other oporating system since win95 and thus has only heard the negative press about the newer versions (we all had big vista bashing moments without even trying it). Quite frankly people like him just shouldnt be allowed the internet to post such backward and unthought out opinions.
 
He has some good points in a way, but it seems to me, what he's after is Linux :s

I dont use Linux personally, but Im tempted by an tiny eeepc laptop for web browsing etc, and it has to be said the later windows are a bit bloated for most.
 
Why does having IE used for interactive things like Help become an issue? Does he not realise you can turn off visual extras in 98/XP/Vista?

Very strange.
 
You always get the bearded blokes at PC shops in town saying all we ever need is 800Mhz P2's. They also often drive Ford Escorts and live in a crumbling old terraces, alone.

Bloke is a pleb, I could drive around in a 1988 Ford Escort, I don't want to because it’s about as aesthetically pleasing as a twig, offers the comfort of a toilet seat and goes like an old person up Snowdon.

That or he likes the attention "LOOK AT MEE I'M WIERD".
 
Article.



My view, he's an idiot. Just because everything he needs 'works' doesn't mean the things he does in 95 an be done on another operating system much easier and efficiently. I also love his opinions on all software not capable of running under 95 is slow and has a poor interface! Your thoughts?

Dear me :(

I never realised how terrible the back and forward buttons are on explorer, and how slow and inconvenient all this new software is... eugh!

Installing 95 now.
 
Nice website :D I note it also contains Netscape 1.0 screenshots and a cassette tape gallery.

Dunno where to start with that article - at first I thought he was trolling, but he seems to be actually serious. What is his problem with IE4 and above? That it has a throbber in the corner of the window? Eye-candy: turn it off! "The most stable DOS-based version of Windows"? That's quite a condition.

Absolute moron. Does he not think that Win95 might have one or two security issues? Shouldn't be allowed onto the internet.
 
I can sort of see this guys point. I'm assuming he knows nothing about security & just uses it like a gloryfied typewriter. If thats all he is doing, and aint using his credit card online I say good luck to him. At least he aint giving "the man" any of his money.

He should convert to linux though.
 
You guys do know it's from 2005 the article, he might be using 2000 by now.
Also whats wrong with office 97?


Still, an idiot.
 
As somebody has said, he should go for Linux. I expect that things like newer Flash or Java websites are becoming difficult for him and, due to the tiny proportion of people that use 95 any more, it is not going to become updated to incorporate them now. Most Linux distros will be; the guy must be losing functionality by not upgrading, and his main reasons seem to be bloatware. Simple answer is Linux.
 
Explore his website some more,... go on i dare you...
Possably the most depressing part is the page regarding his computers http://www.andrew-turnbull.net/comp.html he has the supidity to run win95 on p3! *throws up in disgust* and is proud of it. Some thing tells me he never exists out doors....

Edit: theres not much wrong with 2k :) part from it being a bit ugly....
 
Back
Top Bottom