Why I still use Windows 95

[Kernel Sanders]

http://www.andrew-turnbull.net/tech/windows95.html

:shock:

I really don't understand people like this. In the circumstances he's describing, Linux will do everything he needs and more for free, and it's more stable and secure.

It's like insisting on using your bike with a flat tire and only one gear, when you are offered a pristine new bike with 10 gears for free.

:confused:

[fatality_uk]

I get this as much as I got Kill Bill Vol 1!!!!
In other words NOT AT ALL

Second of all, for a variety of reasons I have a major aversion to Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 and higher

He's prolly got a Vista powered mega laptop and keeps Win95 on a PC at home to impress the girls ;)

[chucky chuckaluck]

http://www.andrew-turnbull.net/tech/windows95.html

:shock:

I really don't understand people like this. In the circumstances he's describing, Linux will do everything he needs and more for free, and it's more stable and secure.

It's like insisting on using your bike with a flat tire and only one gear, when you are offered a pristine new bike with 10 gears for free.

:confused:

i'd rather have a new bike, but with only one gear and a kick brake like i had when i was a kid. (some of us are just like that.)

[djdarrin91]

Windows 95? wow! I really didn't think anyone on the planet still used such an out of date OS. You're right Linux would more than likely be a better choice for that person,in my opinion anyway.

[original_jamingrit]

that's actually pretty hardcore.

And hey, if it works on his computer, he should stick with it.

[kerry_s]

i understand his decision, he uses what he prefers, a personal choice.

[fatality_uk]

i understand his decision, he uses what he prefers, a personal choice.

I agree, personal choice is a very positive move. However, I wonder if he uses carrier pigeons to transmit messages to friends and has a Model T Ford in the driveway.

Opps, I get it now. Just viewed this page
http://www.andrew-turnbull.net/cassette.html

[Kosimo]

Guys...
How many people still uses 50 years old cars? Slow, not fuel efficient (at all) with no automatic doors or anything that you can get with a new car...
But they like it and they really enjoy driving it.

So, why should we start blaming people who uses old software "cars" because they want and it really satisfy their needs?

If he is happy wit it, let's all be happy as well.

[original_jamingrit]

Not to get too deep into the car analogy, but the automatic locks on car doors always make me paranoid about leaving my keys in the car. I'm afraid of locking myself out.

Windows 95 is by no means a free OS, but I remember it being a lot more configurable than later versions of windows. It was simple to use the registry and edit autoexec.bat

[dje]

i'd rather have a new bike, but with only one gear and a kick brake like i had when i was a kid. (some of us are just like that.)

singlespeed ftw :D

[stmiller]

IE in Windows 95 is not even capable of rendering this person's own blog which is written in xhtml. Hmmmm...

[KenBW2]

He said he uses Firefox

[Happy_Man]

Wouldn't it have to be v. 1.5 of Firefox, though?

That's not going to hold up much longer in the grand scheme of things...

[Mateo]

There is a fairly prominent blogger who still uses Windows98.

[Mateo]

Read some of his other posts. Such as this one:

Regardless of the specifics of that matter, I can count at least one person who still uses Windows 95 today. And when he upgrades, it will be to Linux, not Windows 98.

[BlueSkyNIS]

I doubt he is doing any real job on that machine. Probably all programs are so outdated to work on win95 and almost certainly he has compatibility issues with new formats available everywhere. Maybe he is using this machine only to play his DOS games?

[PC-XT]

I live on a farm. We still use a couple 50 year old tractors. Our computers are mostly Windows 98, but some are Windows 95 or DOS as far back as version 3.3. Our Macs are System 6 or 7. For most of the computers, if they aren't broke, we don't fix them. I have thought of actually swapping with an old drive to get Win95 on the 40MB RAM on my desk, because 98 was holding me back a bit, but I ended up just using Tweak UI to turn off the more fancy features. In general, I prefer open source systems, so that I am not restricted about how I can tweak them. Windows 95 does have advantages in some circumstances, but I still think it would have been better with a system more like Linux to begin with.

[nick09]

I have a friend who him and his family prefer windows 98.:lolflag:

[ukripper]

]



He's prolly got a Vista powered mega laptop and keeps Win95 on a PC at home to impress the girls ;)

Not sure if that would work on girls, it is like buying a girl pint of Carling instead of Martini.:)

[mister_k81]

I know someone who still uses Windows 3.1 and wouldn't have it any other way. :?

But that's just how some people are, they're just happy with what they have and never bother moving onto anything new.

[Ioky]

haha, I know this sound odd, but for some reason, which I have no idea why, I have a copy of windows 95 in my CD case. A REAL COPY!!! I don't even get my first computer until 2000. no idea why it exist. Anyway, it is cool to have to impress people though, but really, if anyone need a installation of 95. give me a call. jkjk

[SirThom]

I can agree with most of his reasoning. If it's not broken, why fix or replace it?
If all I used the computer for was basic work processing (Courier, 10pt.), maybe checking/sending email and managing my finances on a spreadsheet, and wasn't interested in learning about LINUX (because I was just not that into computers) I would be perfectly happy running Windows 3.1 on a 386, or even using my old Apple //e which served me well for quite some time.

[SirThom]

I know someone who still uses Windows 3.1 and wouldn't have it any other way. :?

I remember Windows 3.1. It was a damn fine system. It was on some of the high school computers in the 386 lab. There was a 486 lab running Windows 95, but it felt a bit bloated to me.

[jespdj]

The most important reason why I would never run Windows 95 anymore is SECURITY.

By running such an old OS and connecting his computer to Internet he's setting the front door wide open for viruses and worms.

[Eisenwinter]

Imagine using Slackware v1 ;)

[SirThom]

The most important reason why I would never run Windows 95 anymore is SECURITY.

By running such an old OS and connecting his computer to Internet he's setting the front door wide open for viruses and worms.

I never thought about that. I don't have a huge deal of experience with Windows. I had 95 on a laptop which lasted a short time (a few weeks before the battery exploded) back around 2000, but to connect to the net via dialup I had to plug it into a phone jack and I only did it a few times (unlike now where I am pretty much perpetually connected). I was forced to run XP for a year (until I could get *nix running properly) and got some horrible infection in the first week which caused me to have to reinstall my system, and after that I had three virus programmes running simultaneously.
If someone doesn't connect to the net that much except for maybe a daily dialup connection for hotmail (and doesn't run random attachments) then that's pretty safe, no? What about with Windows 3.1?

[FranMichaels]

Thank you jespdj. That is exactly the problem. All the old flaws and bugs are documented, no more security patches = instant pwnage. This machine is likely dishing out spam at the very least.

As for Windows 95
/me cues Windows 95 Sucks by Weird Al

Dated I know. But for me it was true back in the day. Who didn't buy a copy of Windows 95 and didn't need a hardware upgrade? :D

[kerry_s]

you guy's got me curious for some old school now, i might have to dig through my drawer, find those floppy's, wipe my win2k and see how long such installs can last these days, i remember back then you could rename everything so it was very hard to really get infected.
:lolflag:

[Keerghan]

http://www.freedos.org/
Long live the FreeDos Project...

[Old_Gray_Wolf]

I had an old laptop with a 2GB hard drive, 486 processor, and 32 MB of RAM. I tried to install Puppy or DSL Linux on it but it couldn't boot from CD. A few days later I was at a privately owned laundry picking up may close and saw an Amber screen with text menus. WOW, they were running DOS. I offered them my laptop as a backup. They were happy to take it off my hands. One less computer in the landfill. :)

[Old_Gray_Wolf]

As for Windows 95
/me cues Windows 95 Sucks by Weird Al

Oh, I didn't realize the sound track for the Vista version came from "Windows 95 Sucks" by Weird Al or whoever sang it.

I never was very good at history. :)

Youtube:
Win95 version - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6gIrSxjGRo
Vista version - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kql8cWqiv8

History does repeat itself.

[Midwest-Linux]

Some people still use older Windows machines with 3.1 or 95 to run older games that can't run on XP or Vista. Older Windows games can be had next for nothing at the flea markets and yard sales.


Just like there is loyal and very dedicated Vic 20 and Commodore 64 fans out there. Many of whom would never part with their machines no matter what. More power to them!

[karellen]

who cares; even if I don't understand his decision, it's up to him to decide what to do with his computer/time/patience

[gameryoshi600]

He should stick to what works for him :D I personally hated the new computer I got for christmas and am using an old ibm thinkpad t40 (with pclinuxos 2007) and happy with what it can do for me.

edit: I wonder how he protects his computer from viruses though...

[Bungo Pony]

I feel I definately have to comment on this thread...

I was running Win95 on my main PC up until last year. There were a few reasons for this, the main one being the age and speed of the computer I had. It was a Pentium 133MHz. I was thinking about running Linux, but I knew that any newer linux distro would not run on that PC. So I just put it off until I got a new PC.

You'd be surprised at how useable Win95 still is. I would only OCCASIONALLY encountered an OS incompatibility problem, but as time went on, this problem began to grow. I had to run the latest version of Opera on it since IE5.5 was constantly growing outdated.

The most important reason why I would never run Windows 95 anymore is SECURITY.
By running such an old OS and connecting his computer to Internet he's setting the front door wide open for viruses and worms.

Actually, by running an old OS, he's reducting the risk of getting infected, at least with any newer and 'in the wild' virus. An effective virus and / or trojan will exploit holes in the OS security, and it will target the most popular OS. Last time I checked, WinXP is still dominating the OS world. So who in their right mind would write a virus to exploit security holes in an OS that almost nobody uses? (Linux, Mac, OS/2, BSD, Solaris are all good examples of this too). For him, security is getting better solely by obsolescence. I RARELY got infected when I was running Win95. Now that I'm dual booting Win2k and Ubuntu, I've had MORE infection problems in Windows, which explains why I've almost completely moved to Linux.

I definately understand the reasons this guy has been reluctant to move. However, he will eventually need to update, and will be fored to when 64bit becomes standard.

[Frak]

I feel I definately have to comment on this thread...

I was running Win95 on my main PC up until last year. There were a few reasons for this, the main one being the age and speed of the computer I had. It was a Pentium 133MHz. I was thinking about running Linux, but I knew that any newer linux distro would not run on that PC. So I just put it off until I got a new PC.

You'd be surprised at how useable Win95 still is. I would only OCCASIONALLY encountered an OS incompatibility problem, but as time went on, this problem began to grow. I had to run the latest version of Opera on it since IE5.5 was constantly growing outdated.



Actually, by running an old OS, he's reducting the risk of getting infected, at least with any newer and 'in the wild' virus. An effective virus and / or trojan will exploit holes in the OS security, and it will target the most popular OS. Last time I checked, WinXP is still dominating the OS world. So who in their right mind would write a virus to exploit security holes in an OS that almost nobody uses? (Linux, Mac, OS/2, BSD, Solaris are all good examples of this too). For him, security is getting better solely by obsolescence. I RARELY got infected when I was running Win95. Now that I'm dual booting Win2k and Ubuntu, I've had MORE infection problems in Windows, which explains why I've almost completely moved to Linux.

I definately understand the reasons this guy has been reluctant to move. However, he will eventually need to update, and will be fored to when 64bit becomes standard.
It isn't hard to write a virus that supports 95-XP. Plus, he still has to face the Windows 95 virii that are still out there, and yes, they are STILL OUT THERE.

[ukripper]

Running win 95 without internet is safer than using XP with internet, so i guess he made good choice only :

If {
he ain't using internet from it.:) highly unlikely though!!
Else{
he is taking security for granted!
}

[Old_Gray_Wolf]

People are still using older versions of Windows.

I have a genealogy website (therefore non-technical) that uses a JavaScript to collect data on visitors. About 3% of the visitors have JavaScript disabled so my data is a little skewed. The attached thumbnails below show the following information collected on visitors: Share (%) of OS, Browser, Language, Country, and JavaScript version.

Just in case you want to know, I can also see the screen resolution settings and color depth of their monitors among other things [-(.

The data shown in the attached thumbnails is for the last 4 months. The intent is to show that older Windows OS'es are being used, and NOT to show the Linux share of visitors. Some of the visitors are family members (cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.) that I have corrupted by introducing them to Linux.
.
.

[gaspard.leon]

People are still using older versions of Windows.

I have a genealogy website (therefore non-technical) that uses a JavaScript to collect data on visitors. About 3% of the visitors have JavaScript disabled so my data is a little skewed. The attached thumbnails below show the following information collected on visitors: Share (%) of OS, Browser, Language, Country, and JavaScript version.

Just in case you want to know, I can also see the screen resolution settings and color depth of their monitors among other things :).

The data shown in the attached thumbnails is for the last 4 months. The intent is to show that older Windows OS'es are being used, and NOT to show the Linux share of visitors. Some of the visitors are family members (cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.) that I have corrupted by introducing them to Linux.
.
.

So no one that goes to your site is using FireFox 2.x or 3.x yet? or does Firefox always show 1.x??

Or, possibly it's getting Firefox and attaching the Gecko rendering engine version number to that
(which I believe are)
Gecko 1.7.x _FF1.0
Gecko 1.8.0 _FF1.5
Gecko 1.8.1 _FF2.0
Gecko 1.9 ___FF3.0

which would explain why Firefox is always v1.x...

[Old_Gray_Wolf]

So no one that goes to your site is using FireFox 2.x or 3.x yet? or does Firefox always show 1.x??

Everything seems to show up as FF 1.x. I will turn off filtering of my own visits to find out. I'm using FF2.

[Old_Gray_Wolf]

Everything seems to show up as FF 1.x. I will turn off filtering of my own visits to find out. I'm using FF2.

I hit my site and got this result:

Language: English (U.S.)
Operating System: Linux UNIX
Browser: Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.15) Gecko/20080625
Ubuntu/7.10 (gutsy)
Firefox/2.0.0.15
Javascript version 1.5
Monitor
Resolution: 1440 x 900
Color Depth: 24 bits
Time of Visit: Jul 8 2008 9:11:13 pm
Last Page View: Jul 8 2008 9:11:20 pm

My guess is that some old people (don't take this the wrong way as I am old) doing genealogy are not keeping their Windows boxes up to date. :mad: The FF2 or FF3 results may be so low in quantity that they don't make up 1%; therefore, don't show in the graph.

[gaspard.leon]

... is that some old people (don't take this the wrong way as I am old) ...

So old people use old Firefox

1.x ... seriously
2.x has been out for ages
3.0 is the current version

but then the lesson learned here is the same as the general theme of this thread... if it ain't broke, don't upgrade it.

:)

[ukripper]

About 3% of the visitors have JavaScript disabled so my data is a little skewed.
.
.
They may be using noscript like me :) while browsing

[Old_Gray_Wolf]

So old people use old Firefox

1.x ... seriously
2.x has been out for ages
3.0 is the current version

but then the lesson learned here is the same as the general theme of this thread... if it ain't broke, don't upgrade it.

:)

I looked at the raw data that the graphs are made from. Everything is classified as FF 1.X in the graphs even when the raw data shows FF 2.x. I don't see FF 3.x in any of the raw data. Only my Hardy box uses FF 3.x. I turned this in as a bug to the JavaScript developer. Maybe another hold over from when Microsoft ruled the Browser industry.

You are right, my original post was to show that people are using older versions of Windows by choice.

[racie]

About a year ago, my brother dug up our old Windows 95 computer. It had so many old files of crude drawings on MS Paint. It also had some other neat old stuff, too, like After Dark screensavers. I didn't have a computer of my own, so I asked my brother to set it up in my room. Now, it didn't have wireless capabilities so installing something like Ubuntu, Xubuntu, etc. would be pointless. I had it for a little while, then my brother scrapped it for parts and threw the rest who knows where. Okay, I forgot where I'm going with this lol.