Windows 95

Ask questions and give answers about computers, mobile devices, game boxes, PC security and all manner of geeky stuff.
Post Reply
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4314
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Windows 95

Post by yogi » 24 Jun 2017, 09:27

I skipped over Windows 95 and went directly from 3.11 to 98 SE. However, Win95 was what made computers accessible to the masses. This video shows the reaction of some of today's teenagers when they tried to use Windows 95 - with a little help. I thought it would be boring to watch, but I was awed instead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ucCxtgN6sc

tomsk
Posts: 8138
Joined: 25 Feb 2015, 12:47

Re: Windows 95

Post by tomsk » 24 Jun 2017, 13:23

Those computers look so old and cumbersome..

User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4314
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Re: Windows 95

Post by yogi » 24 Jun 2017, 14:23

They do by today's standards, but I used ones just like that for more than a dozen years. Just think about the children born today. They will think the same way about what we are calling state of the art today.

User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 1917
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 11:54

Re: Windows 95

Post by Kellemora » 24 Jun 2017, 16:54

Back when PC DOS was released, most computers only had 64k of memory, very few had 128k, but PC DOS was designed so it could only address up to 640k.

Don'tcha know, and I quote Bill Gates from 1981, "640K of memory was more than anyone needed." He claims he never said it!
The President of IBM in the mid 70s said something like "I can see no reason why anyone would ever want a computer in their home."

There was a lot of controversy and denial by Bill Gates, but an investigator into quotes found the exact written phrase used by Bill Gates. The exact phrase which has been misquoted numerous times is: "When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory." — William Gates, chairman of Microsoft
Source: April 29, 1985 issue of InfoWorld, in an editorial written by James E. Fawcette

User avatar
pilvikki
Posts: 4430
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 15:35

Re: Windows 95

Post by pilvikki » 25 Jun 2017, 16:09

the noise of the modem.............

User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4314
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Re: Windows 95

Post by yogi » 25 Jun 2017, 16:19

I always thought the beeps in the modem were cute. Kind of like R2D2 :mrgreen:

User avatar
pilvikki
Posts: 4430
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 15:35

Re: Windows 95

Post by pilvikki » 25 Jun 2017, 16:49

it drove me distraction until i figured out how shut it up! :eek:

and the 56? i used to have a book on my desk to read while i was waiting.

User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4314
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Re: Windows 95

Post by yogi » 25 Jun 2017, 17:35

I used dial-up well into the Vista era of Windows. Some sites would take forever to load, and certain things would not display properly. I moved over to DSL at that point. Down here in Missouri at my new home I have a cable company connection that can do all kinds of tricky things, such as download a 15GB (huge) game software package in about ten minutes. That would take over ten hours on my old DSL line. Windows95 would not even allow anything that big in it's back yard. :grin:

User avatar
pilvikki
Posts: 4430
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 15:35

Re: Windows 95

Post by pilvikki » 26 Jun 2017, 07:05

our present speed is stop and go style: "3.28 mins.... 4.45 mins.... 4.01... 3.29... 3.58... 101..."

User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4314
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Re: Windows 95

Post by yogi » 26 Jun 2017, 07:59

The other thing about speed is that the specification we see is the maximum possible under ideal conditions. Most websites I visit cannot download data at the 100MB rate that my system is capable of handling. Oddly enough, Microsoft is pretty good when it comes to speed.

Post Reply