• Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Win95 did not suck. 3.1 was trash compared to 95. 95 has a real desktop UI, tcpip built in and a 32 bit preemptive kernel.

    98 was great. It wasn’t any more buggy than 95.

    You ignored NT 4.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m speaking from experience in using theses OSes, not from a list of features they had. I didn’t use NT 4 personally (and that’s way outside the scope of personal computer OSes), so I didn’t talk about it.

    • Asidonhopo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      People used 3.1 and 3.1.1 for years even though it was running on top of MSDOS but show me someone who used 3.0? Or 1.x, 2.x? Unheard of. Version 3 started off with some problems that needed a more or less immediate large update.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        Yes people used 3.1. I used 3.1. Windows 2.1 was very popular because of Excel and Word. The Windows/386 version of 2.1 gave 32bit preemptive multitasking to DOS. It was a big enough hit that MS gave up on OS/2 which was 286 only.

        But Win95 was on a whole new level. That’s why I said Win3.1 was trash compared to Win 95.