Pretty good at collecting every virus under the sun and beginning the anti consumer practices.
95 was an innovator if anything, ahead of pretty much anything else on desktop at the time
Huh? Coming from an Amiga it really didn’t seem innovative. Or OS2 or BeOS (which ran circles around Win 95) or Macs. Windows 95 was still just another dos program on top of a shell.
Windows 95 was still just another dos program on top of a shell.
That’s just straight up misinformation. Even 3.1 wasn’t really like that anymore (though, it was closer). Windows 9x uses DOS as a bootloader, and retains the original DOS components for backwards compatibility, but loads into a fully 32-bit kernel with preemptive multitasking and many features DOS couldn’t dream of touching. It is built atop the original 16-bit DOS, and inherits a lot of jank from that, which is why eventually they ditched it to use the developed-from-the-ground-up NT kernel everywhere instead (and broke compatibility with a lot of old hardware and software because of it, much to the chagrin of the users–)
Huh? Coming from an Amiga it really didn’t seem innovative. Or OS2 or BeOS (which ran circles around Win 95) or Macs.
OS/2 and Windows are siblings, with most of OS/2 being written by the same people within Microsoft. Windows NT is what happened when Microsoft decided to backstab IBM (again) to increase their profit margin (as I myself have said, Microsoft has always been bad from the ‘evil megacorp’ angle).
BeOS was, at the time, an operating system only for Be’s own PowerPC based workstations (and workstation != desktop, especially in those days) – Though there were talks to bring at least parts of it to desktop as the basis for MacOS Copland, that didn’t go through (instead Apple vored NeXT and used its nutrients to make OSX). – It didn’t get a public, user-facing, desktop release that a mere mortal could buy until 1997 (on PPC Mac. 98 for the x86 PC version), which in mid-90s tech terms is like a geological epoch later. Are we also going to compare Doom 2 to Half Life and shit on Doom 2 for being behind HL?
MacOS at the time was still using Cooperative Multitasking (which is what Win 3.0 used, and is unreliable af because any crashed program takes out the entire OS with it) and wouldn’t get true Preemptive Multitasking until OSX in '99.
The amiga did get Preemptive Multitasking to the desktop first (in '86, even. Commodore seriously didn’t know what they had, or they would have ruled the roost), but preemptive multitasking wasn’t the only feather in 9x’s hat.
DirectX was so good at doing what it did (acting as a layer of abstraction between gamedevs and hardware, allowing them to just ask the library to draw and play stuff, and it would figure itself out with the hardware) that alternatives like SDL took another 3 years to exist and much longer to catch up – And it was necessary, because the PC space, unlike the likes of the Mac or Amiga, was an industry standard rather than being controlled by one company, and users could have any combination of wacky third party video and soundcards, and DirectX just dealt with it.
And Plug-and-Play, while buggy as fuck to the point that it really only worked when it wanted, was something that hadn’t been done before. Adding new hardware and the OS just figures that shit out, no reboot required? Unheard of.
Edit: BeOS in 97, not 98. Still retains the whole ‘this was a geological epoch by 90s tech standards’ comment though.
Well I appreciated all of that believe it or not. I still stand by windows 95 being basically a hybrid with the bootload from DOS, but I understand your distinction. But because while windows 95 was 32 bit preemptive, it still had 16 bit applications running at the same time that were cooperative multitasking such as User.dll. They pushed processes to User.dll It still was this weird hybrid sitting on top of several 16 bit processes.
As an Amiga user by early 1988, and access to DEC Alphas and Sun workstations, windows 95 seemed very late to the party. But you are right that in hindsight, windows 95 solved a lot of problems for working with generic hardware for the masses.
But also remember that DirectX at launch was not easy to work with. Microsoft had licensed OpenGL from silicon graphics, and later bought the graphics engine for DirectX from Rendermorphics. OpenGL would be at windows 95 launch far better performing, and directx still hard to write for and limited graphic functionality. But they continued to improve it and you are right they supports sound, joysticks, graphics, one stop shop eventually.
@VinesNFluff@westyvw but win9x still using dos drivers, so it is dos application. 32 bit dos application running on untouched dos system. Yes, it implements full 32 bit OS
It isn’t. It has its own Driver model. DOS drivers are installable and can be called up for backwards compatibility, but windows drivers are different and incompatible.
Pretty good at collecting every virus under the sun and beginning the anti consumer practices.
Huh? Coming from an Amiga it really didn’t seem innovative. Or OS2 or BeOS (which ran circles around Win 95) or Macs. Windows 95 was still just another dos program on top of a shell.
That’s just straight up misinformation. Even 3.1 wasn’t really like that anymore (though, it was closer). Windows 9x uses DOS as a bootloader, and retains the original DOS components for backwards compatibility, but loads into a fully 32-bit kernel with preemptive multitasking and many features DOS couldn’t dream of touching. It is built atop the original 16-bit DOS, and inherits a lot of jank from that, which is why eventually they ditched it to use the developed-from-the-ground-up NT kernel everywhere instead (and broke compatibility with a lot of old hardware and software because of it, much to the chagrin of the users–)
OS/2 and Windows are siblings, with most of OS/2 being written by the same people within Microsoft. Windows NT is what happened when Microsoft decided to backstab IBM (again) to increase their profit margin (as I myself have said, Microsoft has always been bad from the ‘evil megacorp’ angle).
BeOS was, at the time, an operating system only for Be’s own PowerPC based workstations (and workstation != desktop, especially in those days) – Though there were talks to bring at least parts of it to desktop as the basis for MacOS Copland, that didn’t go through (instead Apple vored NeXT and used its nutrients to make OSX). – It didn’t get a public, user-facing, desktop release that a mere mortal could buy until 1997 (on PPC Mac. 98 for the x86 PC version), which in mid-90s tech terms is like a geological epoch later. Are we also going to compare Doom 2 to Half Life and shit on Doom 2 for being behind HL?
MacOS at the time was still using Cooperative Multitasking (which is what Win 3.0 used, and is unreliable af because any crashed program takes out the entire OS with it) and wouldn’t get true Preemptive Multitasking until OSX in '99.
The amiga did get Preemptive Multitasking to the desktop first (in '86, even. Commodore seriously didn’t know what they had, or they would have ruled the roost), but preemptive multitasking wasn’t the only feather in 9x’s hat.
DirectX was so good at doing what it did (acting as a layer of abstraction between gamedevs and hardware, allowing them to just ask the library to draw and play stuff, and it would figure itself out with the hardware) that alternatives like SDL took another 3 years to exist and much longer to catch up – And it was necessary, because the PC space, unlike the likes of the Mac or Amiga, was an industry standard rather than being controlled by one company, and users could have any combination of wacky third party video and soundcards, and DirectX just dealt with it.
And Plug-and-Play, while buggy as fuck to the point that it really only worked when it wanted, was something that hadn’t been done before. Adding new hardware and the OS just figures that shit out, no reboot required? Unheard of.
Edit: BeOS in 97, not 98. Still retains the whole ‘this was a geological epoch by 90s tech standards’ comment though.
Well I appreciated all of that believe it or not. I still stand by windows 95 being basically a hybrid with the bootload from DOS, but I understand your distinction. But because while windows 95 was 32 bit preemptive, it still had 16 bit applications running at the same time that were cooperative multitasking such as User.dll. They pushed processes to User.dll It still was this weird hybrid sitting on top of several 16 bit processes.
As an Amiga user by early 1988, and access to DEC Alphas and Sun workstations, windows 95 seemed very late to the party. But you are right that in hindsight, windows 95 solved a lot of problems for working with generic hardware for the masses.
But also remember that DirectX at launch was not easy to work with. Microsoft had licensed OpenGL from silicon graphics, and later bought the graphics engine for DirectX from Rendermorphics. OpenGL would be at windows 95 launch far better performing, and directx still hard to write for and limited graphic functionality. But they continued to improve it and you are right they supports sound, joysticks, graphics, one stop shop eventually.
Well damn. A person who disagrees with me and is nice and eloquent about it, even teaching me some new information.
Mad respect, stranger.
@VinesNFluff @westyvw but win9x still using dos drivers, so it is dos application. 32 bit dos application running on untouched dos system. Yes, it implements full 32 bit OS
It isn’t. It has its own Driver model. DOS drivers are installable and can be called up for backwards compatibility, but windows drivers are different and incompatible.
@westyvw > Pretty good at collecting every virus under the sun
Not really.
It did have some fails security-wise but 99% of exploits happened on non-updated machines which also had firewall disabled.
98 was far worse in that regard.