[mitchellovision]

click here to also start a little test on, "Which 95 OS are you?".

[Andromeda43]

Well, logic forced me to vote for "C". Newer is always better....right?

However, with all those revisions, they still didn't get it right.....enter '98.

Still not right! Almost zero USB support. Enter '98/SE. (best OS ever!)

The improvements to Windows 16/32 w/FAT-32, stopped right there.

ME was a horrible disaster! (a very poorly engineered mixture of 98 and NT)
Some users liked it but most didn't and most all tech's hated it. You notice I never use the word "All". (There's NO accounting for human taste.)

Enter the Dragon!,,,, Windows XP,,,,a business/networking OS (based on the old NT) forced on the unsuspecting home computer users of the world. Delivered from your local retail store with all the Services, to support a network, installed and already running by default. (at least 20 services can be disabled for home use)

And how about the ton of app's factory installed? Norton, McAffee and what have you. (shudder, grimmace, gag!)

Takes me almost an hour to clean, tweak and customize a new PC today to get it to run efficiently. Out-of-the-box efficiency on the typical system today is about 30%.
That really sucks!

It will be interesting to see how others feel about windows upgrades.

Andromeda43

[somewan]

Andromeda43, on Aug 14 2005, 05:32 PM, said:

Well, logic forced me to vote for "C".  Newer is always better....right?

No. 95B is the famous OSR/2 release (that Microsoft wouldn't sell unless you bought a piece of hardware with it) that added FAT32. Now *that* was an improvement. And what did 95C bring us? Nothing! Except the beginnings of the IE-integration plague and experimental USB... but who cares about cheap USB devices? It's a garbage interface that has no valid reason to exist, considering that 1) it's way too slow for fast devices, where SCSI or Firewire are better choices by far, and 2) it's not necessary for slow devices, such as mice and keyboards, where the good old and more backwards compatible serial and PS/2 interfaces are to be desired. Indeed, whatever the device, there's a better choice than USB.

Quote

However, with all those revisions, they still didn't get it right.....enter '98.

Still not right! Almost zero USB support.  Enter '98/SE.  (best OS ever!)

The improvements to Windows 16/32 w/FAT-32,  stopped right there.

Almost. Win98 has considerable improvements in the memory management and disk caching architecture, and certain other "behind the scenes" aspects. While the user interface does have certain improvements, none of those features would have required contaminating the system with IE, which not only consumes disk space, but gave the GUI a feeling of slowness in comparison with Win95, although after a lot of tweaking and frustration, you can learn to live with it - perhaps because after a while, you forget how fast it ought to be.

[Jlo555]

I voted for 95B, just because of the FAT32 and no IE yet. I only used windows 95B for a couple of days though when I was testing it on my old PII in 2003. It was pretty stable and I was actually able to make a whopping 7.8GB partition insteading of dividing the drive into a bunch of chunks, (FAT16 sucked unless you had a smaller hard drive). So, yeah, FAT32 support and no Internet Explorer integration, that's a perfect configuration.

[mitchellovision]

Windows 95 questionaire is up and running. Sorry it took so long.

[RJARRRPCGP]

Jlo555, on Aug 15 2005, 04:57 AM, said:

I voted for 95B, just because of the FAT32 and no IE yet.  I only used windows 95B for a couple of days though when I was testing it on my old PII in 2003.  It was pretty stable and I was actually able to make a whopping 7.8GB partition insteading of dividing the drive into a bunch of chunks, (FAT16 sucked unless you had a smaller hard drive).  So, yeah, FAT32 support and no Internet Explorer integration, that's a perfect configuration.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I voted for Windows 95 B for the same reason.