Technology

60031 readers

4001 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

500

Almost nine gigabytes in size: Windows update 24H2 creates an undeletable cache file (www.digitec.ch)

submitted 2 months ago by fne8w2ah to c/technology

146 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Blue_Morpho 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Asidonhopo 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Blue_Morpho 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

So you continued to run 3.1 after Win95 came out? I listed the features because it's why it was so much better for me and everyone.

Trumpet was amazing because it worked, not because it was reliable. Win95 was far more stable than 3.1 because the tcpip stack, along with much of the OS was preemptively multitasked.

The desktop UI feature was far more usable than Win3.1 progman. You needed to install Norton or Symantec Desktop to get an equivalent experience.

If you claim that the desktop UI doesn't matter because it's a feature, then Windows 8 becomes a great version. Because it's only problem was the UI. It's speed and stability was better than 7.

If NT is out of scope because it's not consumer then you can't have Windows 2000 in your list. Consumer NT kernel OS's started with XP.