If Windows 95 was upgraded a bit would you prefer it over Vista?

[CJ Master]

Since it seems that Vista has a negative reputation, if Microsoft were to make Windows 95 compatible with the newer hardware/programs and such, would you use it instead? (Pricewise, lets assume if you had vista already they'd give it free, if not its same price as vista. And lets also assume that *nux/Mac didn't exist any more for the sake of the poll.)

[Giant Speck]

*shudders* No....

I'd rather use Vista than Windows 95, even if it was updated.

[aaaantoine]

What about the blatant security problems that Windows 95 had? "Oh, a password is required? Nevermind." *clicks Cancel* "Hey, I'm in!"

In this hypothetical scenario, I'd choose Vista.

Replace Windows 95 with Windows 2000 and I might say otherwise.

[Koori23]

Speck is correct I believe. Nothing like a system that cannot manage resources properly. User32 and GDI32 actually decreased "system resources" to the point that it'd literally crash because it didn't return system resources once the application or whatever was done using it.

Windows 9X was and is a single user system without much sense for security. You can't create a "limited User" account on a 9x machine. You have no rights management system. You can pretty much get around any login prompts by pressing the Escape key.

The only advantage I can see is that you can circumvent installing IE on it or you can just flat out not install it. It wasn't part of the OS originally.

[Eisenwinter]

I don't think you can really compare the two as they are from different times, pretty much.

[Mehall]

Even comparing Vista to 98SE (which is a good OS, regardless of what anyone says) is unfair.

Why not just ask "If they upgraded XP a bit to use better optimisation. etc, would you use it instead?" and the answer would be yes, over Vista.

I still wouldn't use it daily though, I only use ******* because Directx + wine + tf2 + nnVidia Proprietary drivers + my GPU = no worky.

[The Titan]

I would definitely not use windows 95 over vista. For no reason other than security.


Replace Windows 95 with Windows 2000 and I might say otherwise.

This is definitely true, but the major difference between XP and 2000 is the GUI and User Switch option. I havent notices a real big performance increase from 2000 to XP so I consider the two OS's virtually the same.

This said I would say that anyone would use 2000 over Vista (given they did not like Vista, I have actually met many people that like it a lot) if it were a free alternative because XP is the obvious choice for the replacement and 2000 is (IMHO) practically the same OS.

[Koori23]

I say skip the Win95 Argument and use OS/2 Warp. Better yet.. AmigaOS...

Those Amiga systems are so hardy that people have actually written songs about them.. No joke.

[Mehall]

I would definitely not use windows 95 over vista. For no reason other than security.



This is definitely true, but the major difference between XP and 2000 is the GUI and User Switch option. I havent notices a real big performance increase from 2000 to XP so I consider the two OS's virtually the same.

This said I would say that anyone would use 2000 over Vista (given they did not like Vista, I have actually met many people that like it a lot) if it were a free alternative because XP is the obvious choice for the replacement and 2000 is (IMHO) practically the same OS.


2000 is *slightly* better designed/more stable, but I agree. Also: XP 64bit is there.

[Eisenwinter]

Also: XP 64bit is there.
The 64 bit version of Windows XP has terrible application support.

[binbash]

Not 98 but i prefer 2000 over vista even not upgraded one.

[doorknob60]

9x is terribly unstable and you get BSODs often (on my 95 I probably got a coup[le a week), not to mention security. Vista isn't all that bad, presonally I think it's better than XP overall, just you need a decent computer (2 GB+ RAM, Dual Core at least)

[Mehall]

9x is terribly unstable and you get BSODs often (on my 95 I probably got a coup[le a week), not to mention security. Vista isn't all that bad, personally I think it's better than XP overall, just you need a decent computer (2 GB+ RAM, Dual Core at least)

98SE only BSoD'd for me on VERY rare occasions (put it this way: I had Vista for 6months and blue screened it, whereas I had a 98 computer for about 8 years, no blue screen in the last 3)

And why bother getting A decent computer just because you want to run a stable OS?

Granted I have a computer that is more than capable of running Vista (laptop was designed for, and came WITH vista) but you can save your hardware and get more use out of the RAM you have by just choosing a better OS.

And no, I don't mean Ubuntu, Gnome is just as bad as XP/Vista IMHO.

I sue crunchbang linux, and I barely use over 500MB of my 2GB of ram unless Firefox is being it's usual self.

[ghindo]

The security in Vista is a lot better than those in previous versions of Windows.

So no, I wouldn't prefer an upgraded version of 95 to Vista.

[Skripka]

*shudders* No....

I'd rather use Vista than Windows 95, even if it was updated.

I still have nightmares about Win95.

[igknighted]

Unless you are putting it on an older, unsupported system, I'm not sure why anyone would willingly choose any older microsoft OS over Vista. Windows 7 on the other hand, shows great promise.

[apmcd47]

Microsoft beat Apple to a proper multi-user, multi-tasking operating system by about six years. Win 95 was basically a rebadged MS-DOS with a nicer looking GUI. It was a retrograde step even for Microsoft! Why would anyone prefer a DOS-based Windows over anything released since XP?

Andrew

[SunnyRabbiera]

No, but a modded Win2k would be nice :D

[The Titan]

Unless you are putting it on an older, unsupported system, I'm not sure why anyone would willingly choose any older microsoft OS over Vista. Windows 7 on the other hand, shows great promise.

I would willingly choose XP and 2000 over vista and have. The reason being Vista is extremely bulky and most of it is un-necessary

[kk0sse54]

If Windows 95 was upgraded a bit would you prefer it over Vista?
No.

[avaralom]

I've never had a problem with Vista.
I'm using it now, and I've had this computer for a little over a year now. Everything's still running fine.

So no, I wouldn't go back to something like 95.

[.Maleficus.]

Absolutely not. Hell, I wouldn't even go back to XP. My dual-boot Arch and Vista works far too well for me to even consider such a thing. With proper maintainence and a decent rig, Vista can work just fine.

[pparks1]

Vista does get a very bad rap, but with SP1 installed, the problems are pretty darn slim these days. I was quite hesitant of going to Vista at work, but I recently got a new job and the laptop was Vista Enterprise by default and I have to say that I've really not experienced any problems

[Giant Speck]

Vista does get a very bad rap, but with SP1 installed, the problems are pretty darn slim these days. I was quite hesitant of going to Vista at work, but I recently got a new job and the laptop was Vista Enterprise by default and I have to say that I've really not experienced any problems

I have noticed some improvements with Service Pack 1 installed.

I'm curious to find out how Service Pack 2 is going to turn out. It's finally in Release Candidate status.

[bashveank]

No, Vista's bad rap is undeserved

[RiceMonster]

Well Windows 95 is easier to blow up, so that might be fun. For example, the memory is completely unprotected and programs can write to anywhere in memory. Sounds way more fun than Vista. That's the reason it would crash so much too.

[WatchingThePain]

Win 95 is irrelevant.
As it should be.

[Dekkon]

No, Vista with SP1's bad rap is undeserved

Fixed.

When Vista was first released, even I had mounts of bugs especially with Networking, that even I always reverted back to XP even though Vista always dragged me back. SP1 fixed all my problems I was having so I really don't have anything to complain about.

[WatchingThePain]

Yeah Vista is a beautiful thing if you like it.
Anyway..my problem is that I have a pc and since I installed Windows I keep S******ing.
Should I upgrade or what?.

[athaki]

95? No
2000? Maybe
XP? Maybe
7? maybe

Relevance of post approaches 0 as length approaches 1.

[sports fan Matt]

Absolutely never...Vista blue screened more times in a week then it worked using simple things like Firefox...lol

[hoopz23]

is that a trick question? of course not! i love vista! so far i've never had problems with it. vista's bad rep is mainly due to people who probably never had problems with vista before but still hate on vista since they think it's cool to hate on microsoft.

[bashveank]

Fixed.

When Vista was first released, even I had mounts of bugs especially with Networking, that even I always reverted back to XP even though Vista always dragged me back. SP1 fixed all my problems I was having so I really don't have anything to complain about.

I disagree, Vista Beta 2 was just as stable as SP1 on all 6 of my machines.

[Grant A.]

I disagree, Vista Beta 2 was just as stable as SP1 on all 6 of my machines.

Well, keep in mind that early adoption is always a bad idea. I mean look at KDE 4.x, it has potential, and is gradually getting more stable, but had just as many complaints in proportion among Linux users as Vista did among Windows users.

And to answer the question: I would love to have the ability to run Windows 98's kernel along side the NT kernel like you can do with Internix, but other than that, it just sounds like a bad idea, security-wise. I really wish that Microsoft would Open Source the kernel of that piece of abandonware.

[Polygon]

vista honestly isnt all that bad

unless your running it so that your profile folder is on a network. HOLY CRAP, it takes like 10 min to start the computer, plus 10 more minutes to actually login, and then half the time vista just crashes/freezes on you.

so no, i would take vista over any other windows version hands down. Except 7, but that doesn't count as its not out yet.

[Giant Speck]

Well, keep in mind that early adoption is always a bad idea. I mean look at KDE 4.x, it has potential, and is gradually getting more stable, but had just as many complaints in proportion among Linux users as Vista did among Windows users.

You know, I have never made that connection before.

[Simian Man]

No.

[Defrector]

I think if windows 95 was upgraded a bit, it would be windows 98.

So yes! And that's pretty much what I did. I used 98 until 2006. It was starting to be weak in support for modern technology so I switched to ubuntu and am a happy camper.

I have a vista partition on this laptop. I use it about once every 4 months for that odd situation where I have to and it is like walking through a room full of teargas. I just want to get in and out as fast as I can.

I'd rather go '98 than vista, at least so long as it will handle the hardware and the security holds up. That was the problem.

[hoopz23]

Well, keep in mind that early adoption is always a bad idea. I mean look at KDE 4.x, it has potential, and is gradually getting more stable, but had just as many complaints in proportion among Linux users as Vista did among Windows users.


i never thought about that before.

[lethalfang]

2000 is *slightly* better designed/more stable, but I agree. Also: XP 64bit is there.

2000 only "slightly" better than Windows 95?
To me, Win95 is the first OS that's really easy for everyone to use, but Win2000 is the first OS that's actually pretty good. It's vastly superior to Win9x.
I haven't noticed any significant improvement over 2000 in XP or Win2008.

[Johnsie]

I'd rather have '98 than '95. Alot of people still use '98, possibly even more than the number of people who use Linux.

[rasmus91]

:'( How the hell can you ask me to make such a decision :'( what a dilemma

[toupeiro]

Windows 95 was a var worse release of windows overall than Vista...The whole "extended 32-bit" OS which was really still 16 bit, to all the security holes mentioned and not mentioned already in this thread, right down to the hypocrisy of Microsoft, the DRM champions of the world, Distributing the Weezer buddy holly video in MASS production on the installation CD. Call it a sign of the times if you want to.

Personally, I wouldn't take vista either, but between the two of them, I would

[Vince4Amy]

Windows 95 is just a GUI running on top of DOS, it simply isn't practical to run most of todays advanced applications. Not to mention the fact it won't really support anything over 512MB RAM, also if your CPU is 2.0GHz or higher it will just give you an IOS protection error on boot making it completely unusable. It's structure is just not good enough.

[man_bash]

No.
98 - No
Me - No
2000 - I use that for games, as nVidia card + nVidia mobo + Linux = no 3d.
XP - retrograde from 2K. Or rather 2K + ton of useless garbage. Installed it back in the day on my P3 pc (1GHz, 512 RAM, rock stable with win 2K, I ran it once for a MONTH without rebotoing) -- it lasted 10 minutes, before BSOD and immediate consequent format. Never had it on my pc after, hate it in school computers, horrible GUI changes from 2K...

To me windows had gotten as close as it might to perfection (which is still very far from it) with win2k.

[Antman]

Since it seems that Vista has a negative reputation, if Microsoft were to make Windows 95 compatible with the newer hardware/programs and such, would you use it instead? (Pricewise, lets assume if you had vista already they'd give it free, if not its same price as vista. And lets also assume that *nux/Mac didn't exist any more for the sake of the poll.)

Windows 95 or Vista???? I would pick Vista everytime (unless I had a really old PC).

[notwen]

The clear victor here has to be Windows ME. Can't go wrong w/ ME. *nod*

[ubudog]

Well If there was no mac and there was no linux, and the only OS were *******, then I would rather not have any computer at all. Both are very insecure.

[Maheriano]

No thanks, I like using USB devices.

[maybeway36]

I'd prefer Widnows 98 SE with the Windows 95 shell. Its only purpose would be for legacy machines. On newer computers it should be something NT based.

[ubudog]

I wouldn't want a computer if the only choice were *******.

[aaaantoine]

I'd rather have '98 than '95. Alot of people still use '98, possibly even more than the number of people who use Linux.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

Windows 98 market share dropped below Linux desktop market share a couple of years ago. What's interesting is that Windows 95 isn't even charted anymore.

[mamamia88]

if modern apps ran on it i would install it now i want something light to run in vm and all i have is copy of vista and windows 7 but i don't want to dedicate more than 1/4 ram to my vm

[oasmar1]

Thread should be locked. Anyway, Windows Vista is great and Windows Vista has far superior driver support and with Vista almost all drivers will be installed in the first run and after a quick reboot everything is ready. Windows Vista - as hundreds of benchmarks have already prooved is not as slow as the internet is claiming, ofcourse it is slower but for most people who just browse the web and check emails they will not really see a difference in those activities, although they are safer. I expect Windows 8 will be a rewrite similar to Windows Vista and maybe we will see something truely exciting (Windows 7 is a more refined version of Vista - similar to OS X Leopard with Tiger)

[blueturtl]

Seeing all the "oh gawd noes" I decided I should play the devil's advocate, if for no other reason than to stirr conversation. Also I happen to dual boot Windows 95, so I guess I already prefer Windows 95 over Vista.

Reasons I like Windows 95:
- It is uncomplicated. It may lack some features from later versions of Windows, but those features are usually botched up so it's better to not have them...
- It doesn't want to control what you do with your computer. No stupid prompts (Are you absolutely positively sure?), no "My Documents" (yay, I can put my files where I please). Nothing that can't be uninstalled, switched or modified.
- The GUI is the cleanest version of Explorer I've ever seen
- No DRM of any kind, nada. No stupid activation schemes.

The purpose of this thread was to speculate I guess, what does the OP mean by "upgraded a bit"?

If Windows 95 had a good stable kernel instead of DOS, and real user accounts, and resent hardware support then it would probably be better than Windows XP / Windows 7 too. If that counts as upgrading a bit, then my answer is a double yes.


No thanks, I like using USB devices.
Windows 95 has USB support (http://www.usbman.com/Win95%20USB%20Guide.htm), but Microsoft pressured many vendors into not releasing any USB hardware/drivers that supported Windows 95 so they could better sell Windows 98...


Nothing like a system that cannot manage resources properly. User32 and GDI32 actually decreased "system resources" to the point that it'd literally crash because it didn't return system resources once the application or whatever was done using it.
This was actually due to a bug in Common Controls update. The faulty update was bundled with IE, which a lot of people installed and then blamed the OS for. If you install Common Controls 4.01 (and no later!) you will not experience this.


I would definitely not use windows 95 over vista. For no reason other than security.
Remote security on Windows 95 is probably better than Windows NT/2000/XP because there are not unnecessary services running (anyone remember the Blaster worm that got all those NT-based systems killed just because the ethernet cable was plugged?). On local security I agree, any version of Windows 9x is a joke.


9x is terribly unstable and you get BSODs often (on my 95 I probably got a coup[le a week)
With decent hardware and drivers, Windows 9x was pretty much as stable as the new NT-based Windowses. I say this, because I've managed to BSOD crash both Windows XP and Vista. Generally though, it is easier to break Windows 9x, because they don't have a proper kernel/memory management.

A lot of people seem to prefer Windows 98/98SE to Windows 95 even though it is basically Windows 95 with IE bolted on top of it. Also you can get DirectX 8.1 for Windows 98 (only DX 8.0a for Windows 95).

I know I'm gonna take a lot of flak for this post, so to avoid getting caught on technicalities: I most prefer Windows 95 over any later version because it was the last time Microsoft let me believe I was in control of the computer, not the other way around.

*ducks for cover*

[forrestcupp]

The original question is kind of like asking if Hoary Hedgehog could use the latest repositories, would I use it?

Heck no!

[Giant Speck]

The original question is kind of like asking if Hoary Hedgehog could use the latest repositories, would I use it?

Heck no!

Except, as hard as it is to imagine, Hoary Hedgehog is only four years old.

Windows 95 is fourteen years old. :shock:

[cb951303]

95? it's dos with a gui you know.
no users no admin no security at all.
crashes all the time.
why would anyone use it :D ??

[aaaantoine]

- It doesn't want to control what you do with your computer. No stupid prompts (Are you absolutely positively sure?), no "My Documents" (yay, I can put my files where I please). Nothing that can't be uninstalled, switched or modified.

I take it you're not a fan of /home either.

[CJ Master]

Many people are getting the wrong idea here. The question is not "Win95 or Vista" but "Win95+modern upgrades or Vista."

I guess I should elaborate on modern upgrades. These would include:
Memory issue fixed
Full support for USB (which technically does exist, thanks blufish)
Requiring a username/password to log in if the user so choses (but none of that allow/deny crud. Just requiring to log in.)
Modern hardware support
Possibly a newer kernal (although I feel that a newer kernal might just add more bloat.)

Maybe a few more also.

[linuxisevolution]

I still have nightmares about Win95.

I have a Windows 95 system that still has it's original copy of Win95 installed, and it is fast. It has only bsod once (about a year ago). And my little sister uses it to play older games and such.

[ridetheteapot]

win95?
I remeber when the 2600 release of XP came out. What a huge improvement. XP/2k -were- good os's.
I still can not get over the backwards nature of the vista upgrade.
Love or hate it 2k/XP had huge stability improvements over win98 (and ME lol). Compatibility issues still where there (mostly for 16bit apps) but at least there was real incentive to upgrade.
What does vista offer, that is actually needed or adds an advantage over microsofts previous release? nothing besides some glitz for home users. I'm not even a real vista hater, cause i havent had the pleasure of using the os for more then a few minutes. The facts the facts though there was no reason for anyone with an XP/2k system to ever upgrade to vista; even artificial incentives like DirectX10 have been made irrelevant by the fact that windows 7 is coming and anyone with XP who will want to take advantage of dx11 will go that route.

To answer the question neither. the way i see it XP/2k are like an oasis in the desert of crappy MS software, thats where i would go if i had to use windows. But then again what would an upgraded 9x look like? probably just like windows vista :-)

[cb951303]

Full support for USB (which technically does exist, thanks blufish)
Requiring a username/password to log in if the user so choses (but none of that allow/deny crud. Just requiring to log in.)
Modern hardware support
Possibly a newer kernal (although I feel that a newer kernal might just add more bloat.)

you're describing a completely new OS.
creating a username/passeord system on top of win95 + new kernel = new OS
did you meant the GUI of win95 vs vista?

[hyperdude111]

Um...........NO

[CJ Master]

you're describing a completely new OS.
creating a username/passeord system on top of win95 + new kernel = new OS
did you meant the GUI of win95 vs vista?

Username/pass system sure as heck doesn't define a new operating sytem. New Kernal may though.. so scratch off that.

[cb951303]

Username/pass system sure as heck doesn't define a new operating sytem. New Kernal may though.. so scratch off that.

it's not as simple as you think. user authentication is directly related to OS architecture. you can't simply implement it over win95 which is a system surely not designed as multi-user capable. it's DOS for god's sake only more unstable.

[Npl]

Na, Win95 (and Win98 + WinME ) is broken from the ground up, no bandaids or improvements will fix it.

Vista has 1 or 2 things that are better than WinXP, but alot more (and ridiculous) disadvantages, like no hardware accelerated drawing for most Apps. Yeah, you red that right - the hyped "composing" is done HW-Accelerated, but generating the content is done in software only (unlike WinXP). Windows 7 is gonna fix that and its no surprise its snappier (as I heard).

[markharding557]

if i really have to use windows then it would be xp this is about as good as it got which aint saying much

[swoll1980]

"This computer has preformed an illegal operation" Seeing this every 5 minutes is enough to drive someone nuts.

[Grant A.]

it's DOS for god's sake only more unstable.

I disagree, as GNU/DOS (FreeDOS) is very stable. Also, please keep in mind that 95, 98, and 2000 aren't completely DOS, they are part DOS and part MS-unique code in the kernel.

[Skripka]

"This computer has preformed an illegal operation" Seeing this every 5 minutes is enough to drive someone nuts.

In marketing parlance that is called a "feature".

[lisati]

95? No
2000? Maybe
XP? Maybe


95, 2000: Never used either, but I've used 98SE, XP Home and Vista Home Premium.

When I was using 98SE regularly, it usually only had a BSOD when I mucked something up. The copy of XP on my current desktop did have a brief period of BSOD but that turned out to be related to an allergy it had to SP3 (easily fixed by a patch from the manufacturer's website) - it also had a BSOD when I didn't install a card properly, again easily fixed. I've been useing Vista since November last year, no sign of a BSOD yet.

Has anyone mentioned CP/M in this thread yet? Oh - that's right. CP/M is said to have provided some of the inspiration for early versions of MS-DOS.

[hoopz23]

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

Windows 98 market share dropped below Linux desktop market share a couple of years ago. What's interesting is that Windows 95 isn't even charted anymore.

"MAC OSX No Reported Version"

more Hackintosh than Linux LOL :lolflag:

[archer6]

I would simply stay with version 4.6.0.210, which is what, you ask?
.
Ah yes... The RIM OS on my BlackBerry.
.
Cheers.... :)
.
Posted via BlackBerry

[lisati]

"This computer has preformed an illegal operation" Seeing this every 5 minutes is enough to drive someone nuts.
I'd call the police, but:

In marketing parlance that is called a "feature".


BTW: is the term "bug" sysnonymous with "undocumented feature"????;)

[twiz86]

how about we forget about windows and make games run natively on linux. you do that 100% and Microsoft's stock will plunge into nothing.

lets stop wondering what microsoft should or shouldnt do and work to improve the flawless model that we have in linux right now.

steps we should take to at the very least take all bragging rights from MS.

1. native gameplay.
2. turbotax
3. opensource adobe flash
4. perfect java in linux
5. sit back, and lets all have a beer with Mr.Ubuntu himself.

PS. Spread the word. more and more of my friends who arent nerds like me have been making the switch to ubuntu and they love it. hit the streets.

[CJ Master]

1. native gameplay.
2. turbotax
3. opensource adobe flash
4. perfect java in linux
5. sit back, and lets all have a beer with Mr.Ubuntu himself.


1. OpenGL
2. They're the ones that have to port it.
3. They're the ones that have to opensource it.
4. Not perfect, but darn good in my experiances. Shouldn't be a factor.
5. Eww.

[aaaantoine]

how about we forget about windows and make games run natively on linux. you do that 100% and Microsoft's stock will plunge into nothing.

lets stop wondering what microsoft should or shouldnt do and work to improve the flawless model that we have in linux right now.

steps we should take to at the very least take all bragging rights from MS.

1. native gameplay.
2. turbotax
3. opensource adobe flash
4. perfect java in linux
5. sit back, and lets all have a beer with Mr.Ubuntu himself.

PS. Spread the word. more and more of my friends who arent nerds like me have been making the switch to ubuntu and they love it. hit the streets.

Personally, I can hardly wait until all the graphics stack changes are implemented and stable. Once that's done, and once the audio infrastructure is more unified, I think we will begin to see more games support.

But back to the thread at hand. I would rather a stripped down version of Vista than a "modernized" version of Windows 95. It is easier to destroy code than it is to create code. Vista has all the stable code necessary for a modern Windows OS, just that it also has a bunch of extra crap that not everyone agrees on.

[CJ Master]

^

I disagree. I see tons of people complaining that certain programs aren't included by default in Windows 7.