Does anyone remember this? I loved this system, here is what I loved about. My view and experience of it.
It is commonly known that Windows 95 was the first version of Windows to include the taskbar and Start Menu that we are familiar with today. This was a huge improvement in usability compared to the previous Program Manager, and the Start Menu made Windows one of the best operating systems ever made. Despite this, the Windows 95 Start Menu is very different compared to the Start Menu in modern versions of Windows. While Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7 all include a list of frequently used programs on the Start Menu, Windows 95 and Windows 8 do not. I found this to be somewhat limiting in my use of Windows 95, as I opened the Start Menu and was surprised to find that none of the programs I was using were in the first page of the Start Menu. As I have used Windows XP, Vista, and 7, I have also come to rely on the links found in the Start Menu for Documents, Pictures, Music, and the Username folder, as well as the links to Computer and Control Panel. Windows 95 does not include these on the first page of the Start Menu by default, and many of the default folders in modern versions of Windows, such as Pictures and even Documents, the equivalent of the Username folder in Windows XP, do not exist at all on a default Windows 95 installation. Microsoft Office creates a My Documents folder when installed, but it exists on the C: drive rather than being stored in a user-specific folder.
Other elements of the Windows 95 interface also seem incomplete. Much of the drag-and-drop functionality found in Windows 7 exists in neither Windows 95 nor in Windows 8. Like the Start Screen in Windows 8, there is no shortcut to "My Computer" ("Computer" in Vista/7/8) in Windows 95's Start Menu, and a shortcut has to be created manually. Also, the "New Shortcut" wizard does not work for creating a shortcut to My Computer because My Computer is not a file folder. This type of usability problem is also common in Windows 8, where there is no way to create a shortcut to the desktop by dragging something from one view to another or by right-clicking on an option in the Start Screen. Windows 95 does not allow a right-click context menu to appear for Start Menu items. This is similar to Windows 8, where right-clicking allows a user to manage the Start Screen but does not allow a user to do anything else with a tile or icon.
There was one program installed on the Windows 95 PC that prompted me to insert a disc in order to run the software. While the notion of a "please insert disc" error message may seem outdated today, these messages have not gone away. Instead, these have been replaced with error messages that state that an Internet connection is required to use an app. If you have ever tried to use Metro without an Internet connection, these messages will be familiar. Many Wi-Fi-dependent mobile devices also have this problem, and Windows 8 needs to be less dependent on the Internet, in my opinion.
The modern PC is more than capable of running many different applications at one time. Anyone who spends time editing video, working with pictures, creating advanced documents, or editing a website knows that using a PC involves more than working with one application in a full-screen view (or one application and one small sidebar). Windows has always been designed for multitasking, but Metro is not. One of the things that made Windows 95, 98, and Millennium unique was their ability to natively run MS-DOS programs while Windows was running, and I tested this capability. I have suggested for a while that Microsoft allow Metro-style applications to be run in windows on the desktop, like regular desktop programs. Running MS-DOS programs (mainly the text editor program, or Edit) in a DOS window on the Windows 95 desktop showed me where there advantages to this approach. MS-DOS programs generally fit in with the Windows usage model when running in a window, but running a DOS program in full-screen is more like Windows 8's Metro UI than it might seem.
Here is a brief summary of what I am trying to say: Windows 95, was, for its time, a major breakthrough in usability, and introduced many elements of the Windows experience that we have come to rely on. Despite this, Windows 95 was far from perfect, and compared to a modern Windows operating system, Windows 95 feels incomplete. It has many usability problems compared to a modern operating system, and it has problems that are not expected in any software program today. Due to the use of Metro in Windows 8, it brings back some of the problems in Windows 95 and introduces new problems of its own. Metro even reverses many of the advancements that were made in the development of Windows 95. Windows 95 is unstable and lags far behind any modern operating system. Windows 7 is miles ahead of Windows 95, and because it is, at its core, a completely different operating system from Windows 95, Windows 95 and Windows 7 have less in common than one might expect. For Windows 8, I would say: "Let the past stay in the past." Reversing so many of the improvements made both in Windows 95 and after Windows 95's release will only reduce the quality of the operating system. Metro is not a good idea for desktop computers, and brings back many of the problems that were associated with older operating systems. Like the rest of the world, I stopped using Windows 9x many years ago.
It is commonly known that Windows 95 was the first version of Windows to include the taskbar and Start Menu that we are familiar with today. This was a huge improvement in usability compared to the previous Program Manager, and the Start Menu made Windows one of the best operating systems ever made. Despite this, the Windows 95 Start Menu is very different compared to the Start Menu in modern versions of Windows. While Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7 all include a list of frequently used programs on the Start Menu, Windows 95 and Windows 8 do not. I found this to be somewhat limiting in my use of Windows 95, as I opened the Start Menu and was surprised to find that none of the programs I was using were in the first page of the Start Menu. As I have used Windows XP, Vista, and 7, I have also come to rely on the links found in the Start Menu for Documents, Pictures, Music, and the Username folder, as well as the links to Computer and Control Panel. Windows 95 does not include these on the first page of the Start Menu by default, and many of the default folders in modern versions of Windows, such as Pictures and even Documents, the equivalent of the Username folder in Windows XP, do not exist at all on a default Windows 95 installation. Microsoft Office creates a My Documents folder when installed, but it exists on the C: drive rather than being stored in a user-specific folder.
Other elements of the Windows 95 interface also seem incomplete. Much of the drag-and-drop functionality found in Windows 7 exists in neither Windows 95 nor in Windows 8. Like the Start Screen in Windows 8, there is no shortcut to "My Computer" ("Computer" in Vista/7/8) in Windows 95's Start Menu, and a shortcut has to be created manually. Also, the "New Shortcut" wizard does not work for creating a shortcut to My Computer because My Computer is not a file folder. This type of usability problem is also common in Windows 8, where there is no way to create a shortcut to the desktop by dragging something from one view to another or by right-clicking on an option in the Start Screen. Windows 95 does not allow a right-click context menu to appear for Start Menu items. This is similar to Windows 8, where right-clicking allows a user to manage the Start Screen but does not allow a user to do anything else with a tile or icon.
There was one program installed on the Windows 95 PC that prompted me to insert a disc in order to run the software. While the notion of a "please insert disc" error message may seem outdated today, these messages have not gone away. Instead, these have been replaced with error messages that state that an Internet connection is required to use an app. If you have ever tried to use Metro without an Internet connection, these messages will be familiar. Many Wi-Fi-dependent mobile devices also have this problem, and Windows 8 needs to be less dependent on the Internet, in my opinion.
The modern PC is more than capable of running many different applications at one time. Anyone who spends time editing video, working with pictures, creating advanced documents, or editing a website knows that using a PC involves more than working with one application in a full-screen view (or one application and one small sidebar). Windows has always been designed for multitasking, but Metro is not. One of the things that made Windows 95, 98, and Millennium unique was their ability to natively run MS-DOS programs while Windows was running, and I tested this capability. I have suggested for a while that Microsoft allow Metro-style applications to be run in windows on the desktop, like regular desktop programs. Running MS-DOS programs (mainly the text editor program, or Edit) in a DOS window on the Windows 95 desktop showed me where there advantages to this approach. MS-DOS programs generally fit in with the Windows usage model when running in a window, but running a DOS program in full-screen is more like Windows 8's Metro UI than it might seem.
Here is a brief summary of what I am trying to say: Windows 95, was, for its time, a major breakthrough in usability, and introduced many elements of the Windows experience that we have come to rely on. Despite this, Windows 95 was far from perfect, and compared to a modern Windows operating system, Windows 95 feels incomplete. It has many usability problems compared to a modern operating system, and it has problems that are not expected in any software program today. Due to the use of Metro in Windows 8, it brings back some of the problems in Windows 95 and introduces new problems of its own. Metro even reverses many of the advancements that were made in the development of Windows 95. Windows 95 is unstable and lags far behind any modern operating system. Windows 7 is miles ahead of Windows 95, and because it is, at its core, a completely different operating system from Windows 95, Windows 95 and Windows 7 have less in common than one might expect. For Windows 8, I would say: "Let the past stay in the past." Reversing so many of the improvements made both in Windows 95 and after Windows 95's release will only reduce the quality of the operating system. Metro is not a good idea for desktop computers, and brings back many of the problems that were associated with older operating systems. Like the rest of the world, I stopped using Windows 9x many years ago.
