What is Digg?548 Comments
- FreekBoy, on 07/05/2008, -29/+386But can it run Crysis?
- Bukowsky, on 07/05/2008, -4/+266Does he still listen to cassette tapes too?
- RTAdams89, on 07/05/2008, -3/+220I don't know. I see what he is saying, but I still have to disagree. I find Windows XP to be great. If we are talking DOS based, 98SE is a must as it has full USB support in addition to being able to run much more software. I have plenty of Windows 98 programs that won't run on 95, but I have yet to find a Windows 95 program that won't run on 98SE. I think a lot of other people are in my camp too. That is, if they want to run a DOS based operating system, they choose 98SE over 95/ME.
With the release of Vista, XP Pro is becoming the new 98SE. Those who need their programs to run reliably and are "comfortable" with a familiar system choose XP over Vista. - infinityredux, on 07/05/2008, -33/+243Cool.
I on the other hand run Vista and love it. I even like the *gasp* EYE CANDY!!!! - waydee, on 07/05/2008, -2/+193Clearly he also runs Windows 95 on his server.
- Soniti, on 07/05/2008, -5/+175Honestly, the writer of this article sounds like the lowest-end user of any piece of software at any given moment. He can "even run Firefox in a pinch". I'm sorry, am I supposed to be impressed that you are so afraid / inconvenienced by new technology that you find yourself able to bastardize newer software to work on an operating system that is over a decade old?
Get the ***** over yourself. - and303, on 07/05/2008, -3/+163Why do so many people feel the need to publicize and defend the OS they're using? Is there anything more pointless?
- chaoswings, on 07/05/2008, -9/+131I disagree running windows 95 is stupid for a number of reasons. Not the least of it being that they no longer support it and don't fix any security holes. Not to mention a lot of software no longer runs on systems that old. He's just wants attention, say what you want about windows but truth be told it has been getting better over time. He should at least be using XP.
- chaos7, on 07/05/2008, -20/+134lame
- jabab, on 07/05/2008, -8/+120Why I Still Use Windows 95
The operating system I currently use on my primary computer is Windows 95 OSR2. Furthermore, not only do I use Windows 95 extensively, but I prefer it to Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, and Vista.
Yes, I am aware that this puts me in a position not shared by many other people today. I wouldn't be surprised if the proportion of people still using Windows 95 on a regular basis is ½% or less. And, I am accustomed to getting strange or uncomplementary reactions from other people when they find out that I still do: "Are you insane?" or "Why the hell are you using Windows 95?!" are only typical. I can no longer count on most of the latest software being capable of running on this configuration. So, why do I still endorse a computer operating system more than ten years old?
First of all, a computer is a tool. It is a principal of mine that if a tool works well and satisfies my wants and needs, there is no reason to replace it; regardless of mere age. On that note, I have traditionally been the last using any given piece of computer software on occasions before: I used Windows 3.1x semi-regularly on my Gateway 2000 486 as late as mid-2003, when I had a practical need to turn to a newer computer for regular tasks and be capable of running 32-bit programs. Windows 95 is far more technologically sophisticated and viable than Windows 3.1x.
Second of all, for a variety of reasons I have a major aversion to Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 and higher: I do not want to use it and I do not want it present in any form on any computer I own. With Windows 98, Microsoft needlessly integrated Internet Explorer 4.01 (or later 5.0) into features that were ostensibly parts of the operating system itself: The Explorer shell interface and Windows Help both display their contents in Internet Explorer windows complete with a browser-like throbber in the corner, with the browser difficult if not impossible to completely remove. This dubious practice has continued into all subsequent versions of Windows to date. By contrast, it is not difficult to completely remove or circumvent the preinstallation of Internet Explorer from Windows 95 OSR2, and the earliest versions (though less stable and less capable than OSR2) didn't include IE at all.
Windows 95 is reasonably fast in performance, and is not compromised by the arguably frivolous animation and eye candy features in Windows 98 and newer versions: Sliding or fading menus, gradient title bars, "flat" toolbars, and menus that annoyingly take on the 3D appearance of command buttons when moving the mouse over or selecting them but to name a few examples. There are no "activation" schemes, and the OS installed takes up well under 500MB.
Currently there is no hardware or software I need or desire to use that is not capable of running on Windows 95. I can run even Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird in a pinch. Most of the applications I have found that do require Windows 98 or higher, meanwhile, tend to be incidentally plagued by having slow performance, a poor interface design (such as with the newest versions of Windows Media Player and RealPlayer), and/or no compelling functionality not present in an earlier version. In any case, the APIs of Windows 95 OSR2 and Windows 98 are virtually identical, and there is no good reason for any software capable of running on one not to work on the other as well. With my browser and e-mail client, Office 97, WordPerfect 7, and a few graphic tools I can be as productive as I like with Windows 95.
While I freely concede that Windows NT 4.0, 2000, and XP are much more stable than Windows 95, I also maintain that Windows 95 OSR2 is the most stable DOS-based version of Windows to be released, moreso than Windows 98 and especially the buggy mess that was Windows ME. It is substantially more stable and handles system resources more efficiently than Windows 3.1x as well.
I prefer to have as much native compatibility as possible with DOS applications such as older games I own. While it is possible to run these from Windows 2000 or XP either natively or (as circumstances may very well require) through an emulator, I prefer to have the real thing.
Finally, Windows 95 has an intuitive user interface I prefer to the IE-integrated monstrosities of Windows 98 and subsequent versions. Windows 95's Explorer uses OS-native controls and menus, has all the most essential tools—such as file-delete and individual icon-view controls—on the toolbar, does not waste space with oversized toolbar controls or needless left-hand icon-and-caption panels, and doesn't contain unnecessary Internet Explorer tie-ins such as awkward "back" and "forward" file navigation or a "Favorites" menu. The Start menu automatically sorts folders and files alphabetically automatically, and defaults to a multi-column view instead of Windows 98's slow and inconvenient scroll arrows.
I don't expect my reasoning to be representative for everyone, of course, and I have sometimes been tempted to switch to a different version of Windows myself (specifically NT 4.0 or 2000) or even abandon Windows entirely a number of times. However, I have justifiable reasons for my decisions, and will continue using Windows 95 OSR2 as my primary OS for the forseeable future until I can no longer run a relatively up-to-date web browser or absolutely must use a piece of hardware or software not compatible with Windows 95. - burchie2, on 07/05/2008, -2/+112cuz i'm a seventy-five year old grandmother who has to use AOL to check the emails from my grandkids.
- ddfall, on 07/05/2008, -2/+110I think you would need to start with a letter to Nvidia or ATI asking for a few 'updated' drivers for your video card followed by an act of God.
- medj, on 07/05/2008, -13/+107Although I run XP, if any average person looked at my desktop they would think I am running Windows 95 or 98 (no desktop background nor any styles). I do prefer the simplicity of old Windows compared to the "eye candy" in the new ones like Vista.
- badenglishihave, on 07/05/2008, -6/+97Dugg for truth; no machine can run Crysis.
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -4/+94His blog design is also from 1995. Who gives a ***** what this moron thinks?
All I need to paste is: "With my browser and e-mail client, Office 97, WordPerfect 7, and a few graphic tools I can be as productive as I like with Windows 95."
Call me when someone who uses their computer for serious purposes has a reason to run 95. - Niallgriff, on 07/05/2008, -2/+77I can't imagine still using windows 95, it was great at the time but that was 13 years ago. At least move up to win 2000....."Windows 95 is far more technologically sophisticated and viable than Windows 3.1x."
On second thought 2000, XP or Vista would probably blow this guy's mind. - lolupissed, on 07/05/2008, -5/+78Cliff notes: I am poor and can't afford a modern computer to run windows xp
- mrinsanity, on 07/05/2008, -13/+75Sorry, I like eye-candy. First thing I do when I install windows xp is grab the Zune theme (orange start button, glossy black taskbar and windows) and get to interfacelift for some awesome desktops.
Go ahead, digg me down 'cause I like shiny things. - culbeda, on 07/05/2008, -0/+59I was surprised when I learned that Microsoft support 95 all the way up until version DirectX 8.0a!!
That might run a surprising number of games... until it crashed. - phogasmic, on 07/05/2008, -2/+59Man, all this traffic is going to take that site down. I can't see the logic for running such an outdated OS. I agree that many modern OS's are bloated, I can even understand staying a version behind, but 15 years behind.
- chaoswings, on 07/05/2008, -0/+57Security is better then obscurity. Don't depend on being a minority to keep you safe.
- xinxu36, on 07/05/2008, -31/+87More power to you. I respect the ability to keep your rig running.
- evilelf2407, on 07/05/2008, -8/+62attention whore
- fzammetti, on 07/05/2008, -3/+56My dad too refuses to use anything but Netscape Navigator 3.0 Gold. He's also still running 95 on an old PC... he reinstalls his entire PC once a week, just for the hell of it (he's retired, what the hell else has he got to do?!?). He likes to brag how he's got Windows installed down to like 4Mb no disk, something like that. I don't know why he ever expended the time to do it, but hey, whatever floats his boat. Same to this guy. If 95 does it for you, on whatever old hardware you have, then cool. It's much like many other things people do in this world... if it's not hurting anyone I'm all for it, even if I think it's crazy, repulsive, immoral or whatever else. Now, I'm not sure which of those I consider running Windows 95 :)
- kelchm, on 07/05/2008, -5/+56What a nut-job.
- gldfshnpcklejar, on 07/05/2008, -2/+51"I prefer the simplicity of the single spinning axis of a record player, to the complex two wheel cassette tape."
- shakajumbo, on 07/05/2008, -7/+55it REALLY kicks the llama's ass!!
- Tek12, on 07/05/2008, -1/+44It really WHIPS the llama's ass.
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -4/+46So tell us, how is Winamp 2 doing for you?
- e2superman, on 07/05/2008, -8/+49Welcome viruses :). Step right in!
- MrViklund, on 07/05/2008, -13/+54Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Sorry but you are an idiot. GL with the security patches! - Jimmerz, on 07/05/2008, -1/+42Vinyl and 8-tracks. The occasional reel-to-reel. For the sake of nostalgia he keeps a Victrola and some wax cylinders around.
- tkcom, on 07/05/2008, -1/+41Digital Amish.
- twiztidsinz, on 07/05/2008, -1/+41I love how one of his reasons for not using anything higher than 95 is IE4.0.
I'd say he's a hijack waiting to happen.. but *****, even scriptkiddies don't want anything to do with Win95. - LittleDas, on 07/05/2008, -13/+49No.
- DM01, on 07/05/2008, -1/+36You weren't playing crysis then.
- bblande, on 07/05/2008, -4/+39You young kids and your XP. 95 works fine for me!
- nonzzero, on 07/05/2008, -6/+40This guy sounds old. Really old.
- twiztidsinz, on 07/05/2008, -0/+34http://www.andrew-turnbull.net/faq.html#contact
Q: Is it just me, or does your website have absolutely no coherent theme?
A: *sigh* Well, I suppose that's one of the perils of having too many interests
Q: Does your mother know about this site?
A: Yes. - silentb0b, on 07/05/2008, -5/+38he doesn't use his computer. end of story.
- bitweever, on 07/05/2008, -2/+34I hate progress!
- chaoswings, on 07/05/2008, -2/+31I agree with you there. Vista has never crashed on me. I use it for programming , 3d modeling, gaming etc. It has never gone belly up. If you don't want eye candy you can choose to turn it off...saying you won't buy vista because of the eye candy is a poor excuse. It is more secure then before and if UAC bothers you that can be turned off as well.
Vista was rebuilt from the ground up and it is better then XP with the release of the service packs. People complain about the resources it uses but that's only if you have an old machine. If you get a newer one with 2GB of RAM and duo core your fine. - Phil13, on 07/05/2008, -1/+29Actually I'm an avid Mac user for over 20 years, I just hate fanboys and people who shove their ideals and opinions in your face.
Plus, things like this make all Mac users look bad. Makes people think we're all like this.
You shouldn't assume things. - 4LeggedtriPod, on 07/05/2008, -17/+45Windows 95? Seriously. Are you that stubborn that you won't switch to OS X or Linux if you don't like any of the other Windows OS's?
- Flyer00, on 07/05/2008, -0/+27I could not go back to the 9x kernel for the simple fact that I hated having to reboot every day. Back in college, I used to see how long my 95 machine could go without a reboot. I think the furthest I could get (with everyday use, web browsing, and some gaming) was about 5 days. While I may have some fond memories of it, I am SO glad the NT kernel is now used in the home versions!
- MJG2007, on 07/05/2008, -1/+28I'd be more impressed if he used AmigaDOS and Workbench 3.0.
- geekchic, on 07/05/2008, -9/+36Ditto - when setting up a new computer, the first thing I do is switch to the "classic mode" for the windows aesthetic.
- ch33sehead, on 07/05/2008, -1/+25nigh7dagger, that must have been a fun slideshow to watch
- Disease, on 07/05/2008, -0/+24That was Far Cry, nigh7dagger.
- haterofps3, on 07/05/2008, -10/+34Good for him.
Personally I hated 95 and 98 and saw nothing I like in either OS, it could also be that I shared a windows95/98 box and it ran like *****. It wasn't till I got my own box and a free copy of windows 2000 that I found something I really liked.
Cheers to each their own -
Show 51 - 100 of 553 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is