Windows 95 was the best OS ever created

All the valuable look and feel of every version since and it ran on 4MB RAM and 20MB HD. All the bells and whistles since add little value and what we have lost was of more value. Linux fans have to admit that they have been copying the W95 look and feel since 1995. W95 was completely customizable and Microsoft encouraged it.

Every version of Windows since has become less customizable until, with Windows 10, you have virtually no customization at all except to choose one color and Microsoft does all the rest for you. Now we have white-on-white scroll bars, disappearing scroll bars even though, for many years, Microsoft, correctly, preached to disable not remove functionality based on context. Microsoft has forgotten all that they once knew about usability in favor of trying to make your desktop operate like a phone - and now give up on the phone but your desktop still has to behave like one.

I used 95 a lot when I was 3 years old
I much preferred XP when my dad upgraded

keep your rough look and temp folder clearing every 2 days nigga

win 3.11 was the best

>I used 95 a lot when I was 3 years old
REEE

Hell no.
AmigaOS.

Windows 95, XP and 7 were the times Microsoft got it right

All the good guys left man, long retired. Now Pajeets run this here land. Smells of shit too.

Don't make me come over there and slap your shit.

fuck yeah bro

This!

>AmigaOS in 1994

2000 is still the best microsoft os

>Windows in 1994

>Windows 95 was the best OS ever created
You didn't actually use it, did you? Have fun with your bluescreens. I don't miss it one bit.

>Windows 95 was the best OS ever created
>I used 95 a lot when I was 3 years old
Valued opinion from you guys. Might want to widen your view on things though.

I hate how the OS itself has become part of "the experience" of using a computer. The smaller and faster it is, the better.

No one winds a crank to start a car anymore, and we don't electronically recreate it, so why do we still tolerate such slow and heavy start-ups and footprints of our OSs?

great-great-great-great-great-great grandpa can sleep easy, now
he did his thing

you can rice windows 3.1 too!

MY EYES ARE BLEEDING

Windows 95 UI is far superior to the W10 one, but W95 under the hood was shit.

Is this a troll from the devs, or for a particular type of color blindness?

It's "Hotdog Stand"
Kids loved it

plan 9, 1991
better than unix (even modern unices, linux, bsd, etc)
no customiaztion (except modifying the source) because the users are actually intelligent and realize that modifying it will make everything less uniform for everyone
doesn't copy no one's looks
text based ui
just works
8(1/2)and rio can have itself, or have programs without it

It was a piece of shit which crashed all the time

also for color blindness

workbench forever

Do have a soft-spot for monochrome UIs.

UNIX boxes have always looked great in their Spartan simplicity.

Though I always liked Atari's TOS for having a GUI in ROM.

>because the users are actually intelligent and realize that modifying it will make everything less uniform for everyone
moot point for a personal workstation though

98se rapes it

lads, are things getting worse?

As always.

Yes. Everything is always declining onwards to Kali Yuga.

God that looks like shit.

>so why do we still tolerate such slow and heavy start-ups and footprints of our OSs?
Because we have faster hardware to make up for it than we did back in the 90s.
If your computer suffers from slow and heavy start-ups, please consider not running Windows Vista or a newer OS on hardware from the 90s.

My point is why do we still have any wait at all? The Atari ST showed that a GUI can be ran from ROM. Every step we take forward just allows for more bloat and weight; it's almost Malthusian.

Yes we have SSDs now, but that's still slower than ROM.

>Yes we have SSDs now, but that's still slower than ROM.
Are you fucking special? The ROM inside Ataris and Amigas was nothing fast. Shadowing the ROM was a thing for a reason, the ROM access and bandwidth was quite slow.

>he doesn't know about Windows 98SE
>he doesn't know about SGI IRIX
>he doesn't know about IBM OS/2
Get tue fuck out of here and go back to Sup Forums.

Magic Cap!

OS/2

Newer version of Magic Cap

Copland OS

it got color.
well it's not like you make everything only for your pc....

Guys, stop. My stomach can't take anymore nostalgia-rocks.

>IRIX

mah nigga

Really tempted to install OS/2 on my spare T60.

if only IRIX was an actual DE and not just some hacked together script downloader for binaries pre-compiled for specific distros that only ends up half working sometimes. I try to use it for more than 10 minutes and just end up installing Openbox with an IRIX theme instead.

Sorry meant to clarify that if only MAXX was an actual DE. Not IRIX. Though that would be cool too.

>Windows 95 was the best OS ever created
Stopped here.

There's RISC-OS, which goes like shit off a shovel even on SBCs, so it's a great OS if judged on how well it treats its hardware.

Consider Amiga.

MaXX is a fork of the IRIX Interactive Desktop. IRIX itself is a complete operating system that ran on SGI MIPS workstations.

I was more talking about its ability to function very well on current limited hardware. Amiga is great, but the native 68k hardware is rather costly here due to collectors* and the "modern" iterations like OS4 and Morph only work on PowerPC and cost money.

*resellers

>for binaries pre-compiled for specific distros

I really wanted to use MAXX on Arch/Gentoo.

And no 32bit either, so the older hardware something like this would go great with don't get to use it.

One thing I notice when I look at older UIs is how much information they manage to squeeze into their tiny resolutions, while still being clear.

Turns out the solution to the "screen real estate" problem was just good design, and not screen size.

>why wait so much when we could boot from rom
No user, no. Booting the OS from ROM nowadays can only mean 'let's boot Windows 10 from ROM'.

Even if you manage that, the constant updates will quickly leave you back where you started, or worse.

Windows 95 was never good. Bluescreens every day and the design, though good, is nothing great compared to other systems from the time. You just have nostalgia.

Having a OS on flash storage that's on the PCIe bus is pretty much like having it on a ROM, but you can write to it also.

I think one aspect of ROMs that is underutilised is their security. As long as your main OS is on a device that can't be changed you've essentially got one less thing to worry about.

Of course it'd need a hardware switch to allow writing (something like on a floppy disc) for updates, but aside from that be totally locked down.

This would require devs actually test their shit and not fuck around and think "Oh, we'll patch it later" though, so it would never happen.

And has USB support

>And no 32bit either
This is my biggest gripe with it.

I wonder if in some distant future, now free north koreans will make nostalgia threads about red star os

fuck man, things just get worse and worse.

>This would require devs actually test their shit and not fuck around and think "Oh, we'll patch it later" though, so it would never happen.
Atari TOS was buggy though, so was the early version of kickstart.

AmigaOS is just pure pr0n

I want to install OS/2 with SMP on this slab one day, need to write a new BIOS though.

Could always check out AmiWM.

...

>need to write a new BIOS though.
Why? Someone has already written one you can use.

THIS. Fucking nightmare.

It looks cool, but I'm not that much into imitation.

Write it on the ROM I mean. It has one of the early flash ROM chips and it was sitting 17 years unpowered.

>The GIMP

I was born in 99 lol, mobile phones had that much ram when I was a kid.

You have to work on the execution a little better, when you overdo it, it stands out as obvious bait.
Nice though, 6/10, extra points for trying.

nt 4 is better

You're right, I was born in 98. Thought I could shift the age up a bit to piss people off. Next year I'll pretend I was born in 2000 instead.

For real though, did games and consumer tech go to shit after 2013 or is it just me?

its retarded that everyone is still doing the same things but the hardware requirements keep going up because devs are lazy and want to bump the version number every week.

>For real though, did games and consumer tech go to shit after 2013 or is it just me?
You probably grew up and realized it's shit. It went to shit far before that.

>windows
>good
B8

LOL

wait...what? It has draggable screen like Workbench?

you can technically rice it if you copy the source code for rio to your home directory and modify it and run your own version

Yeah that's the year my parents got divorced etc. etc., but still. I feel like everything up to 2013 the technology was getting better. Better graphics in games. Bigger games. Steam with great sales. New phones, a fingerprint scanner in a phone??

Then suddenly BAM five years of meme flipbooks, still-expensive laptops that aren't better than 2011 macbooks and meme machine elarning and ISIS and some shitty made by commitee movies. I don't know, maybe I am getting old.

>shitty background texture making whole desktop look cluttered and barely readable
vs
>simple but clear and effective window manager
Your point being?

i wish someone cloned this desu

>look cluttered and barely readable
that's a 614x456 picture
you have to remember you would have viewed that on a 14" monitor or bigger

Aren't there already one or two Linux themes ?

i just want a window manager that behaves like the program manager

I'm sure there must be a few, you mean like program minimizing, etc?

>effective window manager
>Amiga: *drags screens*

So what? It's still cluttered when I zoom it to full screen on my 25". Busy textures like this have no business being in a functional UI. It's the same stupid shit trend that continues to this day, let's put something flashy and shiny for the wow factor because the technology allows it, and to hell with actual practical considerations.

>bitching about having options
Never bothered me, but whatever you say, turn it off.

Windows 95 was a HUGE piece of shit and NO Linux didn't copy w95. Both Gnome and KDE had their design aesthetic set before 95 was even out of beta. I know this because it was Chicago, the 95 beta, that caused me to switch to Linux in 1994 because 95 was a huge festering pile of shit and wouldn't even run 16bit win3.11 programs that weren't a frontend for DOS shit. "This is not a valid win32 application" was the last fucking straw.

If anything, Microsoft copied the ui design of KDE and Gnome for 95

>It's still cluttered
>flashy and shiny for the wow factor
someone never used an low resolution desktop on a CRT before
you won't even notice a pattern like that, except it isn't eye burning blank color straight into your face like it would without it

You don't have a wallpaper on your current computer?

twm

that's not even remotely close

It is though, minimizing programs behaves the same way and so do windows.

then you might as well claim that windowmaker is a clone of the windows 3.1 shell

But that minimizes into a dock and not the desktop

nah, if you want to dock something you have to drag it to the dock

even when its docked it'll still minimize into an icon in the corner that can't be docked