Microsoft

Remember when we used to blast Windows 95


It seems that no matter which version of the Windows operating system is currently being sold by Microsoft, there will be a vocal group of naysayers lambasting the version for being bigger, running slower, and requiring more hardware. On the other side will be a vocal group advocating the latest version as the next best thing in information technology, with the suggestion that we should all blindly upgrade whether we actually need to or not.

All that fighting leaves those of us in the middle scratching our heads and looking for a little perspective. So I thought we might take a minute to look back at history using Greg Shultz's closet as our guide. Greg found an old box of Windows 95 memoriblia and created a TechRepublic Photo Gallery out of it.

The release of Windows 95 was a big deal, not only for Microsoft but for the information technology industry in general. Microsoft spent a great deal of time and money promoting their new operating system, and Greg, working for the Cobb Group at the time, was blessed with a box of stuff he used to create his Windows 95 Photo Gallery. In the end, Windows 95 turned out to be an adequate operating system, especially after Windows 98.

What do you remember about Windows 95? Where were you? Do you have a box in your closet with old Windows 95 software?

About

Mark Kaelin is a CBS Interactive Senior Editor for TechRepublic. He is the host for the Microsoft Windows and Office blog, the Google in the Enterprise blog, the Five Apps blog and the Big Data Analytics blog.

54 comments
Slayer_
Slayer_

We had a fuse go in the house, when the power came back on, it got halfway through a scan disk, then froze, never to start up again. I was really disappointed because it was my Web/FTP/Voice server. It had been for the last 3 years. The system is/was 13 years old, going on its 14th birthday in March. I haven't been able to fix it, but its WIndows 98 replacement, with twice the CPU power, its crazy slow compared to it. Every window has a peeling effect, the drive seems to be constantly thrashing, its terriable. Windows 95 rules!

PrinceGaz
PrinceGaz

Ah yes, Windows 95. Not quite Windows NT, and not quite ready for the home mearket imo. But I did enjoy the demo of Fury3, a game which probably inspired the Descent series and which seems to have been all but forgotten. Windows 95 was a leap too far for the home market then, but probably a good thing in the long run as it ensured 98 and what would be the everything it originally set out to be, 98SE, to be developed. Ny 98SE, it was truly stable and all the PC hardware around could run it very well. I'll gloss over ME, like most people do, for good reasons. At least Vista wasn't half as buggy as 95, but I think Windows 7 will be the Windows 98 equivalent of it-- everything Vista should have been originally, but it wasn't ready in time.

john3347
john3347

What I remember about Windows 95 is that if I had broken a law and gotten caught every time I performed an "illegal operation" I would be in jail for 7 lifetimes. Windows 95 was CLEARLY, the most troublesome and unstable operating system I have ever seen or heard of. I hear gripes and gripes about Windows ME that performed quite satisfactorily for me. I even stayed with windows ME until after XP SP2 had been out a few months. Windows 95, to me, has to have been the biggest OS blunder of all time - - WAY BIGGEST!

dianned
dianned

I am a believer in technology, probably going back to days when Underwood was the typewriter of most offices. With the move to IBM, IBM Selectrics, Wordprocessors and Computers from DOS to today. I took 250 hours in Computer Technology and 25 years later could take that much and more and still not be uptoday with newest and best. Just purchase a new Touch Window with all bells and whistles and couldn't be happier. Question, what do I do with all those typewriters, balls, font diskettes, and computer paraphenalia including old laptops I have stored in my attic for no good reason except I can. Printers why do we collect them! Is there a library of old technology? I love all the technology changes but I felt Windows 95 opened the door to bigger and better and look where we are today, who would have imagined a TV sized monitor, wireless and touch window. WOW

joy64
joy64

I remember getting Windows 95 from a friend and installing it. Hated it. Went back to DOS till they straightened out the bugs. This happens with every version that comes out. I think what it was Microsoft was so young we were basically all getting the beta version and as the bugs were noted they were fixed. Not much has changed. Windows 7 is the debugged version of Vista. I have been using Vista from the beginning. I took out the 1GB RAM and put in 4GB. Runs like a dream. I don't know that I like the idea of having to click on start every time I want to launch my frequently used programs. I like the quick launch area.

kennysessions
kennysessions

Ran Like A TOP on a bunch of Unisys 386 servers i had! Still got 1.44 Floppy Install Version. :0)

lquinones
lquinones

The problem is not the people who critize Microsoft products!.. the issue here, is how a company such as Microsoft (with all that experience, money, support, etc, still make basic mistakes in creating software products!. windows vista is the latest example of that!.

davego33
davego33

I still remember the hoopla accompaning the release of win95 but all I did was shake my head in disbelief. As a former Amiga user and current IBM OS/2 user, I smugly concluded that win95 was going nowhere. I had my first job as a computer tech, and my first time installing win95 (from 3.5" floppies) was memorable. After all the disks were installed and it booted up the first time, the familiar start-up music played and I thought this was cool. Of course, as a desktop support tech, I came to dispise the limitations/plug-n-pray features of win95. I really liked winnt 4.0 much better. Now, I only have fairly pleasant memories of win95, but wouldn't want to go back to those golden days. Yesterday I downloaded the windows 7 beta 1 iso and have installed it; awesome; no problems and appears very stable. Much better to my liking than vista has ever been.

jasondlnd
jasondlnd

I purchased my first home PC in 1997, and it had Windows '95 preinstalled on it. It crashed so often, me and my brother dubbed it WinCrash 95. I will never forget spending countless hours and days reinstalling everything on my 5 GB hard drive every time a file would become corrupted or a problem would arise. In March of 1998, I performed a memory upgrade and installed Win98. With Win98, things seemed to run a bit more smoothly. I still had the occasional file corruption problem which caused me to waste more nights reinstalling my entire PC, but it happened less often than WinCrash 95. All in all, I would never go back to using WinCrash 95...too many problems and the files become too easily corrupted.

gaitch32
gaitch32

......So I remember it very well. Nobody was prepared for xcopy not working. As soon as the manufactures figured that out, then GHOST took off. MS had a fit?..always heard about the evils of cloning, sids, licensing, etc..but the Big boys put enough pressure on them that they let it go. And sorry guys, but I am the one responsible for those crappy restore CDs that come standard now instead of the install disks. They only way we could get MS to agree to an image was to have them bios locked. Went to one config center and they showed us their image storage system, 2 terabytes...about the size of a refrigerator...ah the good old days.

stealth_spy
stealth_spy

yes i still have my "other computer" running windows 95 .. here are the specs .. pentium MMX 233mhz 32mb ram 3.7gb hdd and guess what, it still boots faster than vista on my quad core with 4gb ram!!

dogknees
dogknees

The people who complained about XP and wanted to stay on Win95 are now the ones who want to stay with XP and not go to Vista. I wish this group would make up their minds which version they wish to stay with permanently and do it. They'll never have to update their hardware as they're usually the same people that "will never need more than xxx MB/GB/...". Then they can simply stay out of the discussions about the latest version and the rest of us won't have to put up with the rantings of myopic luddites!

TheChas
TheChas

If you look back, starting Windows Windows 95, it seams that Microsoft laid an egg with every other version of Windows. Windows 95 had lots of problems that were fixed by the 2nd and third releases. Although they never did get USB working right. Plus, there was a steep learning curve from Windows 3.1 or DOS. Windows 98 especially the Second Edition was very well received. Windows Me? Well, if a version of Windows ever flopped, this was the big one. Windows XP may well be the best and most liked version of Windows so far. Vista has it's critics. The big issue I have with Vista is that they made so many changes just to make a change that you wonder what the project leaders were thinking. Did they really need to rename so many standard functions? For that matter, did they have to change where you go to access those standard functions? Chas

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I had just stopped working as a facility manager at a major call centre and was I ever pis$ed off! For the previous 1.5 years I had been fighting the fight with juggling 200+ static IP's on a Windows 3.11 network, yeah, telephony before telephony was invented. :D We had a Davox Unison predictove dialler, still better by miles than any of the half-arsed IP crap used today and static connections to over 200 phones/headsets. When shifts changed, IP's would come up as in use, DAMN another duplicate! It was a horror show because the idiot that set it all up had been 'let go' and was back east. In the meantime, no IP rages or addresses were marked, no stations were marked etc. It was hours and hours at night setting up statics and hoping no conflicts were found the next day. But this is about Win95 ,however Win95 was a solution to my issue, yet a little too late, in fact that's a LOT too late for me. Win95 was when I used Dreamweaver for the first time, good ole HTML based web pages with graphic buttons with three rollover states. It sure was an advanced age!

Jaqui
Jaqui

If you had it enabled [ the default ] you were not allowed to install Windows 95, it was a virus. ]:) I spent a week chuckling at that when I saw that message on a latest and greatest i486dx @ 66 MHz.

Mark W. Kaelin
Mark W. Kaelin

What do you remember about Windows 95? Where were you? Do you have a box in your closet with old Windows 95 software?

radams36
radams36

My sympathies for your loss. I had a TI TravelMate 6050 (a GREAT laptop in its day) with Win95 on it. I got a backup laptop (same model) and installed Win98 on it. The Win95 machine was WAY faster and more responsive. Oh, and I still have a TravelMate 6050 (and a 6160, its immediate successor), and I still have the Win95/98 hard drives and can swap them out anytime I have the nostalgia bug. As I posted on another Win95 discussion thread, I ran the Win95 machine for YEARS, and almost never had any General Protection Faults, crashes, or lockups. I didn't install any third-party OS 'extension' crapware, like third-party screensavers and the like, and I rigorously avoided third-party device drivers as much as possible. Task Manager showed only Explorer and Systray if no apps were up. I also shut down at the end of the day every day, then cold-booted the next day. I supported Win95 and Win98 for Microsoft under a contracting arrangement for years, and almost every caller I ever had who was having stability issues, it was due to some third-party software, not part of Win95/98 itself. That was on the vendors for the software, not on Microsoft.

steve_ward15
steve_ward15

Shame on you. Re-install it and get the good times back. I still have a laptop running 95 and I wouldn't change it for the world. Mind you I also have 98, XP home, XP professional, XP64 Pro and UBUNTU 64.

dhjohns
dhjohns

My first windows computer had Win 3.11 on it. My wife and I installed 95 and then went right back to 3.11. We waited for 98. That OS was so much better than 95. I had an AMD 5x86 133 with 64 mb of RAM and it was a real work horse. Now I am going to say something that everyone may disagree with but me and my techie friends! We LOVED Windows Millenium. It was truly the swan song of the 98 series. I nor any of my buddies EVER had a problem with it. Fast and stable. Of course, XP was much better.

Slayer_
Slayer_

Mine was a 200mhz with 33 gb HDD (was upgraded from original 3 gig) and 256 DIMM Ram. Computer was from 1997. It was basically a gaming machine, huge amount of grunt to it. It just sucks it went nuclear 2 weeks ago, just a month before its birthday.

rbackus
rbackus

The older NY state vehicle inspection station software requires W95 machines. A lot of EPA monitoring and test equipment software is still W95 compatible.

jck
jck

I also remember that Windows 95 had another new built-in feature when it came out: If you had a multi-boot setup, it would simply just get rid of it without telling you. I had a friend lost his OS2/Warp setup to Windows 95 thinking it was the only OS that should be on your hard drive. He actually called Microsoft and cussed at them. They told him he should have kept backups. lol Nonetheless, Windows 95 was horrible upon release just like Vista seeing as how they are supposed to be "finished products". I've avoided Vista as much as possible. I still have 3 XP Pro x64 licenses left to use on future machines I build for gaming and MS development. Otherwise, I'm going Linux.

JackOfAllTech
JackOfAllTech

I was an expert on all things 16b Windows (3.11, etc.) but was only familar with W95 through magazine write-ups. My wife and I went to look at a used PC for sale and when I sat down, I was surprised it had Windows 95 on it. It only took me a few weeks to learn all the ins and outs, tricks, and programming how-tos. I still have the install CD (several, in fact) and lots of software for it.

AmishCake
AmishCake

Not only do I still have a Windows 98 and 95 CD lying around, I still have WFW 3.11 floppy disks. I installed it on a virtual machine just for kicks. It's so...SMALL! And lean...and light. Amazing. We have come a long way.

gak
gak

I was and still am in Russia. If I remember it well, when Windows 95 was released I was listening to a live report over BBC. They reported long lines waiting for the store doors to open and a firework. Nobody recalls that, was it really so? At that time most of the software we used was pirated. I do not remember exactly how long did it take for Windows 95 to hit the streets, but it did so shortly. For us, Widows 95 was better than 3.x out of the box and OSR2 was good, that is, we were ready to allow it to crash from time to time. I still use 95 in Virtual Box to run some old DOS programs.

therealjunkman
therealjunkman

I actually have a box with Win 3.0, not just 3.1 and 3.11, which I also have, but Win three point zero! It still has it's book and everything that came with it. WHY? I Dunno. Nostalgia? Collector's habit? Anyone dying to buy an antique? (Kidding, it's not for sale) I have at least one copy of every windows version for home desktops since, excluding some of the server types, Win 2000, and those, as I had nothing to run them on. I also have a full copy of DOS 5.0 with book, as well as a few earlier versions of DOS, which I what I started learning about the PC with. I also still have a copy of BASIC for the Texas Instruments TI-99/4a, with tapes, books, and so on. That was REALLY my first computer, if that's the right thing to call is. It had a whopping 16k of ram, which went all the way up to 32k with some cartridges, notably, the Chess Master. (And I still couldn't beat it!) Junkman

Snuffy09
Snuffy09

I dont remember if it was 95 or 98 but my friends changed his screensaver to "outer space" and turned his volume up max when they knew he was going to be outside of his office most of the day. It was so funny cuz every 15-20 seconds you would hear the short sci-fi sound fx then nothing. Our boss would run around saying did u hear that? while he was looking all over the place. I think it took him the better part of a week to connect the dots.

robert
robert

I remember being on the beta cycle. It was a great improvement from the collage of banyan vines etc... We used 95 with an NFS client. Great improvement at the time over what we were doing.... I do have a pile of interim Release CD(s) in a box....

tcavadias
tcavadias Staff

..when 95 came out. What I remember most about it? - all them darn disks and the ability to play 7th Guest . I sure loved that game! And 11th hour that came out later. I have an old laptop (compaq) that has Win 95c on it. -Tammy :-)

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Fortunately before it got too boring, MS fetched out 98....

Snuffy09
Snuffy09

when windows 95 came out i was in 6th grade maybe. I didnt even own a computer. I just remember playing doom95 at my friends house till the sun came up. I got my first computer with windows 98 Good ol' days!

jck
jck

I was still in Oklahoma when it came out. I specifically remember the stories of Microsoft hiring on enough people to almost double their support staff because they knew Windows 95 would have so many issues. Windows 95 is to Windows 98...what Vista is to Windows 7, from the looks of it. And yes, I have a couple old machines that have Windows 95 OSR 2.5 (USB-capable).

radams36
radams36

Nicely done, Steve! I have laptops running Win95, 98SE, XP Home, XP Pro, Windows 2000, SUSE Linux 9.3, SUSE Linux 7, and even Windows ME. And I even have one running Windows 3.11. Yes, the good old days are still here in my household....

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Only use Win98 because they could no longer get drivers for Win95. :D

rkuhn040172
rkuhn040172

Was taking a screenshot of someone's desktop, moving all their desktop icons off screen, hiding the taskbar and then installing the screenshot as the background. Get's them everything.

davego33
davego33

I still remember the hoopla accompaning the release of win95 but all I did was shake my head in disbelief. As a former Amiga user and then current IBM OS/2 user, I smugly concluded that win95 was going nowhere. I had my first job as a computer tech during this time, and my first time installing win95 (from 3.5" floppies) was memorable. After all the disks were installed and it booted up the first time, the familiar start-up music played and I thought this was so cool. Of course, as a desktop support tech, I came to dispise the limitations/plug-n-pray features of win95. I really liked winnt 4.0 much better. Now, I only have fairly pleasant memories of win95 (senile now??), but wouldn't want to go back to those "golden" days of yore. Yesterday I downloaded the windows 7 beta 1 iso and have installed it; awesome; no problems yet, and it appears very stable. Much better to my liking than vista has ever been.

itpro_z
itpro_z

By the time Win98 came out, Win95 was on its third release and had become quite stable and accepted. When 98 was released, it was trashed by the media, mostly based on tests ran on Beta versions rather than the final release. Win98 did have its issues, but matured into an excellent product with the Second Edition. I had many users who stayed with 95b until Win2K came out, and skipped over 98 entirely. 95b would run quite well on machines with only 32 MB RAM, while 98 needed a whopping 128 MB to run well. The parallels to todays discussions about Vista are striking. Put Vista on an older XP class computer, and it runs poorly, much like 98 did on 95 class computers. Put Vista on a suitable computer, and it runs very well, better than XP on the same hardware. It is for this reason that I never upgrade the OS on existing machines.

pdr5407
pdr5407

I liked the desktop in Win98 verses Win95. Win95 looked more like a business system, with no cool effects, colors, and fancy icons. In contrast, Win98 had a more internet ready look, which was designed for media applications, games, and home entertainment. It is similar to how Vista now looks compared to XP. There are more effects like Aero, the sidebar, and Media Center added with Vista HP verses the still business like plain XP OS. This is a boring topic, but I wanted to point it out.

john3347
john3347

hokuwho, this comment is not to diminish either the skill or the importance of IT professionals, but to put numbers into perspective. The untrained public is far and away the largest user of an operating system simply because there are millions more of them. Perhaps - just perhaps - if, in fact, Microsoft is favoring the layman with beta software, it might be because laymen buy millions more copies of the final product than IT professionals do. Maybe they are finally trying to listen to their biggest customer and willing to learn what they want in a final product.

aandruli
aandruli

You also have to think of Vista's time-killing popups that ask if you really want to run that program

medley.stephen
medley.stephen

I have been using computers since 1975 for business. Seems as though many either used Windows 3.1, 95 and 98 as a hobby or browsing. Never having a problem with Win98 and seeing people convert to SE means you never had to troubleshoot driver issues like modems or boot problems. I did that for a living. ME was and is disregarded as an OS. Windows 2K Pro and 2003 Server were the last serious user-friendly OS and I mean that from an administrator point of view. If one had the initiative to master the OS then one could expect a respectful expertise. XP was and is acceptable but was full of responses to poor technical support by manufacturers' driver writers, piracy and recording industry constraints that Vista took to a new low. A breathe of fresh air came with open-source providers but was no more than Unix with a GUI. The "Architect" concept of developers still was inundated with constraints that were designed to protect industry rather than take computing to it's potential. I run Vista solely because I service computers and voluntarily wallow in the mire to experience first hand the mediocrity to be able to claim expertise to a client. Windows 7 seems to be difficult to obtain as a beta where I used to be offered the software, as a professional, with exuberance by Microsoft. Now I believe that Microsoft would rather laymen get the first crack at evaluation because they can be spun more easily. If Windows 7 is such a great leap forward for MS then why the coyness? Let the veterans on the front lines of tech support raise that flag on it's merits not hype. Steve Medley

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I suspect it was. ;\ The problem was that the OEMs not only didn't install the USB update files, they actually shipped USB-equipped PCs with 95a or 95b installed. You wouldn't believe the number of customers I had in that time frame that were looking for an upgrade to 95c because they bought some USB device, then discovered it wouldn't work with their version of Windows. More than one of them had booted to the OEM's recovery CD only to discover that it not only didn't fix the problem, it blew away all their data!

seanferd
seanferd

I thought 95c was cool, but didn't like 98 until the SE came out. I thought it should have been an update, though - not something that one would need to purchase if one had a valid 98 license.

dcn
dcn

I agree Win98SE was a step up from Win95 especially with the USB issue and having to install all those floppies! I disagree that Vista is better especially when it comes to netwoking with other computers. . .I loathe Vista. One of our nuns refuses to use anything but DOS so we continue to have WIN98SE on one of our computers so she can continue to live in the stone age. At least I got rid of her IBM computer with 360k memory and 3MB hard drive.

jck
jck

I remember that with printers and cards you installed a lot. It was a pain.

jck
jck

What else = MS wanting to get product to market to get the revenue stream flowing. I think they were getting ansy about it taking so long to get to market. I think another 90-120 days to polish it would have been a smarter marketing move. The laptop dv1024us has 4GB and 250GB and the whole smattering of options. The only bad thing about it is the 14.1" screen. I am spoiled by the 24", 22" and 20" monitors I have on PCs. I cleared almost all the software off the HP that came with it. I have the cam disabled. I turned off almost everything. I even disabled Windows Defender to see if that helped. There might be some preload stuff I missed or something. I will go check again. Or, I might not have turned off the search optimization/indexing that Vista does. I don't need a search to be super efficient cause I can remember where I put my files. Of course, ME was still the biggest fiasco with getting hardware to install I saw. I saw identical PCs get it installed...with identical hardware...and...hardware would work on one, but not the other. I'd rather use XP or Windows 98...or if they get built-in MS application translation into Linux, I'd use it.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

The idea that you would load the drivers [u]before[/u] you installed the devices took a little bit of getting used to. Add in that Win95 could support USB [u]only[/u] in OSR 2.5 and then only after you installed the appropriate update, installed the drivers in exactly the right way, and held your tongue just so when you connected the device, and it was no wonder many people jumped to 98 as soon as they knew USB was fully supported. Drivers were still a problem in 98, though. I remember carrying around both a thumbdrive with my files and a floppy so I could load the drivers if I needed to. edit: grammar

itpro_z
itpro_z

Sometimes with Vista or XP it is an add on program causing the system to drag. Common culprits are Google Desktop, antivirus suites, add on firewalls, etc. I had an XP machine last year that was a complete dog until I removed the Kodak software that came with the user's camera. Have you cleaned the startup programs? Vista has a decent builtin firewall, so don't add another, and keep you AV software down to a minimum. Poor drivers can also cause performance issues. While some complain about Aero, I have it running at max settings on our common desktop computers that have only the on board Intel chipset graphics, and it flies. It is a myth that, on modern hardware, you need a high end graphics card to make Aero work. There were issues with some of the older graphics chipsets, but any modern board should run it with no difficulties. The problem that I ran into with Win95c, which included USB support, was that many peripherals would not install their software unless they saw 98. I guess it was too hard to check the 95 version, so they just required 98 instead.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

In my experiences machines with higher end dual or quad core processors and four gigs of memory, laptops included run better on Vista. Both in feel and my benchmarks. Then again I've only had experience with 64 bit versions of Business and Ultimate. The experience I had on one 32 bit version was not as satisfactory as 64 bit on the same laptop...which goes without saying I guess. I recently got handed a new Latitude e6400 with 4 gigs of memory and the t9600. It ran much better on vista business 64 than xp. Boots faster, recovers from hibernation faster and just "feels" faster. Benchmarks better, too. That is until you install Dell's crappy fingerprint reader software, which nearly DOUBLED my boot to the desktop times on a fresh (non-Dell image...MVLS downloaded dvd)install of either xp or vista.

jck
jck

I was able to find at CompUSA a device that had USB drivers that you plugged into a slot that worked with Win95 with the added USB stuff. I did it to a couple of my machines, as well as my mother's at the time. As for my 2 laptops, one is a Dell Inspiron 1501 with 2GB of RAM, Aero tuned down, etc. It was still sluggish, even after the hard drive started going back and i put in a 5400 rpm model rather than the cheapo 4200rpm one Dell had stock in there. The other laptop is a HP dv4XXXXUS (can't remember the exact number) model that has an T8400-class processor in it with 4GB of RAM and 250GB HD. It's no slouch either, and i've cleared all the HP proprietary software off of it that I could. I really hope Windows 7 is a big improvement. Vista came out WAY too early in its final stages of QA. They should have kept it under wraps for 90-120 more days. But, I guess MS felt a need to "get it out there" or else.

itpro_z
itpro_z

Although USB support was added in Win95c release, it was difficult to find drivers for many devices. Most USB devices would only install on Win98, since USB support in Win95 was spotty. Personally, I would rank Win98SE as among Microsoft's finer releases, as by then the 9X family had hit its peak. I don't know about your laptops, but many Vista machines (like XP) come loaded with crap that must be removed to get decent performance. I have installed Vista Business on several dozen machines on our network, both laptops and desktops, and the performance has been excellent. Of course, these are Core2Duo processors with 2 - 4 GB of RAM, but that is pretty basic these days. The only machines that I have ran across where Vista was sluggish were very low end machines with 1 GB RAM. I cured them by adding RAM and doing a thorough cleaning of crapware. For the record, I have had many XP machines run poorly out of the box until I did the same. I have installed Vista and XP on identical modern hardware, and can attest that Vista performs better than XP on suitable hardware. The difference will be even greater as we move on to more modern hardware, which is rapidly leaving XP behind. If you check out the recent performance tests on ZDNET and other sites comparing Win7, Vista, and XP, you will see confirmation of this. Like Win98, much of Vista's bad rep has come from people trying to run it on unsuitable machines.

jck
jck

I never had issues with Windows 98. And, I had a Compaq Armada 4120T laptop that actually ran better (and still runs to this day) in Windows 98SE than it did Windows 95 OSR 2.5. I also saw a lot of people convert up to Windows 98SE, after they discovered that most version of Windows 95 didn't support their new USB scanners and printers they were buying. Or, they didn't know how to implement the USB connectivity into Windows 95. So far for Vista, I have gotten pretty crappy results on the 2 laptops it came installed on. I was able to boot and run stuff faster from external XP boot drives than the internal drives with Vista on them. For that reason, I haven't even toyed with putting Vista in any form on a desktop build. I'll stick with XP. Then, I'll evaluate Windows 7...and if it is not to my satisfaction, I will look toward Linux + Cedega for a full platform solution for my personal home use.

Editor's Picks