Windows 95 Turns 15 (yawn)
Posted 25 August 2010 - 12:39 AM
Posted 25 August 2010 - 06:51 PM
Windows 3.1 less dependable than Windows 95? I don't think so! 3.1 was more of a DOS shell than anything. 95 had true multitasking.
Anyways... enough time wasted here...
Abort, Retry, Epic Fail? _
Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:56 AM
The author wrote:
"Back in 1995, I was reasonably happy with Windows 3.11, which pretty much did what it was supposed to without a lot of fuss."
Maybe the author was happy, but not the rest of us.
I seem to recall having to restart Windows 3.11 many times each day, even with after tweaking it. That release of Windows still relied on co-operative multitasking, which created a big problem when running multiple applications, and crashes were frequent. Windows 95 introduced 32-bit pre-emptive multitasking, and was, in my opinion, a major upgrade and a major improvement over previous versions of Windows. Win 95's support for long-file names was also a relief for many.
"Like vista and win7, Win ME was the disaster that preceded Windows XP"
Windows 7 was a disaster? Not sure if this is correct. I moved from Win XP to Win 7 x64 a couple weeks ago and have never looked back. Win XP is old and needs to be retired. LOL
Posted 30 August 2010 - 04:38 AM
PCW crappy Articles turn 5 (Yawn)!
Posted 30 August 2010 - 08:34 AM