Windows 95 turns 30

[tfw756rider]

I don't know who else on this site has retro/vintage computing as one of their other interests, but I thought it deserved a mention

30 years ago today (24/8/25), on the 24/8/95, a version of the Microsoft Windows operating system was released that debuted a major change to the basic layout, that is still used by a lot of us today in Windows 10/11, with:

• a taskbar, with buttons for running programs relocated to it from the desktop, and a system tray/notification area on the right of it
• a start button/start menu, with program groups relocated to it from the desktop
• the ability to create shortcuts, and name files with more than 8 characters (up to 255, which is still the default limit)
• the desktop now being a place you can put any icons/shortcuts on, and defaults to having no windows on it
• the first appearance of the '_ □ x' buttons in the top-right corner of windows

It was also the first version of Windows to support the then-new DirectX, with two major components of it allowing new types of games and programs that are still played and used today:

• Direct3D would eventually (early 2000s) become the standard Application Programming Interface (API) for 3D graphics, including in, but not limited to, 3D games
• DirectSound enabled music production programs to become Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs), rather than just sequencers for outboard electronic musical instruments

It was such a huge improvement on previous versions, that a lot of what it introduced is still used today in one form or another!

 

[Ken X]

I don't know about vintage, we were quite impressed when Windows 3.1 appeared with its GUI interface.
No more writing batch files in Basic.

 

[tfw756rider]

I don't know about vintage, we were quite impressed when Windows 3.1 appeared with its GUI interface.
No more writing batch files in Basic.

No disrespect for the predecessor!

And good point - Windows had become more widely used in the first half of the 90s with the 3.x versions than it had been before then, but arguably more so in 1995 with 95, because, (another first) it was the first version to automatically start when you turned on your PC, rather than you having to type "win" in DOS to start Windows

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I do believe I have the discs in a box upstairs.

 

[tfw756rider]

I do believe I have the discs in a box upstairs.

Nice

 

[Trackman]

I had a beta CD before it was released, to connect to the dial-up internet you had to use Telnet. Inbuilt browser was naff, until I used Netscape Navigator (with email) which was reliable and stable as a class 55 missing 24 'C' exams and throwing oil.
I had a CD drive (cost £100 I think) you had to alter the autoexec.bat and device.sys files for it to work, then it was a bit hit-and-miss.

 

[TheSmiths82]

I remember it well. You could of course start Windows 3.1 without having to go onto the DOS prompt, it was just a single line in Autoexec.bat but in those days unless you were doing specific stuff in Windows, MS-DOS could be more productive. I would never load Windows to play games for example. When I got Windows 95, I still used a floppy boot disk for DOS games so I could free up RAM.

I think I bought Windows 95 in the second half of 1996 when I saved up enough pocket money to upgrade our 486 SX2 from 4MB to 12MB of RAM. It was a game changer but we were still using Windows 3.1 at school even when I left a few years later!. Of course the major problem with Windows 95 is it still used DOS as its back end. This wasn't really an issue in Windows 95, but the time Windows 98 came out and we had stuff like world wide web and USB drivers the DOS underpinnings were showing their age. I was still using Windows 98 in late 2002 and I got fed up of the constant crashing. Windows XP solved of all that.

While I liked Windows 95 and it did so much to make PCs more user friendly, I think the real break through was the NT based Windows XP.

 

[johntea]

I have that era to thank for my entire career! (I still don’t know when I ask myself even today what else I would have done as a career after finishing school)

Interestingly on the sever side of things my first job actually used Novell so I had to learn that too initially until they were forced to move to the Microsoft stack about 10 years later, I still miss some Novell features that Active Directory lacks!

 

[73202]

I do believe I have the discs in a box upstairs.

I have a set of windows 95 discs in my computer desk cupboard.
Also I have a set of windows 3.11 disks in there to.

 

[simonw]

I don't know who else on this site has retro/vintage computing as one of their other interests, but I thought it deserved a mention

30 years ago today (24/8/25), on the 24/8/95, a version of the Microsoft Windows operating system was released that debuted a major change to the basic layout, that is still used by a lot of us today in Windows 10/11, with:

• a taskbar, with buttons for running programs relocated to it from the desktop, and a system tray/notification area on the right of it
• a start button/start menu, with program groups relocated to it from the desktop
• the ability to create shortcuts, and name files with more than 8 characters (up to 255, which is still the default limit)
• the desktop now being a place you can put any icons/shortcuts on, and defaults to having no windows on it
• the first appearance of the '_ □ x' buttons in the top-right corner of windows

It was also the first version of Windows to support the then-new DirectX, with two major components of it allowing new types of games and programs that are still played and used today:

• Direct3D would eventually (early 2000s) become the standard Application Programming Interface (API) for 3D graphics, including in, but not limited to, 3D games
• DirectSound enabled music production programs to become Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs), rather than just sequencers for outboard electronic musical instruments

It was such a huge improvement on previous versions, that a lot of what it introduced is still used today in one form or another!

I recall there was a segment about its release on R4 morning news on the day it was released.

 

[Tunnel Bore]

No disrespect for the predecessor!

And good point - Windows had become more widely used in the first half of the 90s with the 3.x versions than it had been before then, but arguably more so in 1995 with 95, because, (another first) it was the first version to automatically start when you turned on your PC, rather than you having to type "win" in DOS to start Windows

I was petty enough to write batch file called "lose" containing just the command "win".

In 1982, on a visit to Xerox in Milton Keynes, I was shown a WIMP desktop (window, icon, mouse, pull-down-menu) and sadly had no realisation how revolutionary it was and how ubiquitous it would become. Apple copied Xerox and then Microsoft copied Apple. Possibly copied = was inspired by.

 

[OuterDistant]

I remember this well. The hype was everywhere to the point you'd think it was the Second Coming. But it was to be another two years until we as a family moved to the PC platform from the Amiga, and it was hard to see what all the fuss was about.

It's funny to think that all those years later, we don't even have a Windows device in the house. Mostly Android, a bit of MacOS, and I'm typing this on Ubuntu.

 

[py_megapixel]

It's funny to think that all those years later, we don't even have a Windows device in the house. Mostly Android, a bit of MacOS, and I'm typing this on Ubuntu.

Yes, unfortunately despite how revolutionary it might have been 30 years ago, there's not much denying that modern Windows is very poor indeed. Its sole use seems to be as a vehicle for Microsoft to increasingly invasively shove unwanted "functionality" down the throats of people who have no practical choice but to use it.

I own one Windows 11 machine and it spends most of its time sat in a cupboard, only coming out if I want to run some software that requires it...

Unfortunately almost any PC purchase still comes with a Windows license, so even if the first thing you will do with that PC is reformat the drive and install a more usable operating system, you still have to pay for it ... perhaps there should be a regulation compelling retailers to offer consumers the choice to purchase a computer without any bundled software.

 

[Trackman]

While I liked Windows 95 and it did so much to make PCs more user friendly, I think the real break through was the NT based Windows XP.

Yes, it was based on Windows 2000 NT 5.0.
After XP, came along the disaster that what was Vista.

 

[bleeder4]

While I liked Windows 95 and it did so much to make PCs more user friendly, I think the real break through was the NT based Windows XP.

And XP is still knocking around now, a quarter of a century later! I did jury service last week and in the court room they had a table in the corner with a printer on it and and an ancient Acer laptop which I could see was running Windows XP. I wondered what it was there for and then the judge needed a document printing out and the clerk went over there and used that laptop to print it out. They obviously use it to print evidence from.

 

[nlogax]

I have fond if not slightly frustrating memories of first trying it on a PC on the college network I was an admin for at the time. It was a pre-release version and our PCs didn't enjoy the luxury of CD-ROM drives so had to feed my office 486 DX about 25 to 30 diskettes before the magic happened.

It was surprising to see how well it worked out of the box, even connecting to our Netware network with minimal fuss. Overnight it made the classroom PCs on WfW 3.11 seem like relics - although had W95 been deployed to those them my homemade ini file based admin scripts would no longer have worked (thanks Windows Registry, I still loathe you to this day).

 

[johntea]

Yes, it was based on Windows 2000 NT 5.0.
After XP, came along the disaster that what was Vista.

Vista was an interesting one in that it wasn’t *that* bad…except it needed decent hardware (and a couple of service packs but that was the same for XP really) to run well, but manufacturers would be forced to shove it on any old junk so it ran like a dog and hence got quite a bad reputation

In typical Microsoft good OS > bad OS > good OS cycle they then released Windows 7 followed by the dreadful Windows 8…yep let’s remove the start menu and replace it with some full screen tile nonsense!

 

[mikeg]

Ah Windows 95! I remember our first 'proper PC' in 1996, a Compaq Presario 7230 with Windows 95, 8 MB RAM, Pentium 120mhz and a whopping 1mb of (2d) video RAM. OF course it was confusing installing software as many of the manual were referring to windows 3.x instead, which used a completely different interface. This included some bundled software. Programs designed for Windows 95 were often the fist thing we got running.

Of course Windows 95 was a strange OS in that it was essentially an operating system running atop another (DOS 7.0, which the user would usually drop down to).

It set the idiom for many a desktop and indeed many a windows desktop,

meanwhile under the hood:

It made the already launched Win32 APIs ubiquitous, introduced preemptive multitasking to a consumer grade OS (Okay so Amiga and OS/2 had already had this for a while but MacOS would have to wait another five or six years and RISC OS would never gain it) meaning that one bad app didn't crash the whole system or freeze other apps. I believe memory protection was still pretty rudimentary and there was no proper system security - wouldn't get away with that now but we coped, even outside of consumer workflows.

Every now and then I decide to give 'modern' windows a go (I have a licence for w11 on my laptop - and am using it now). There are many things I don't like, especially the reliance on cloudy stuff where I want to keep it local and the lack of local user accounts. Then there's the bloat and ads that aren't so easy to remove. I use MacOS as my daily driver for my desktop, largely on value for money grounds with the hardware* and support for unix-y workflows. It is too a bit too cloudy but with some settings you can make it more local (Some of this requires using the terminal but is well documented). On my laptop about 90% of the time I'm running Ubuntu. The last machine to reach even 50% Windows running time I had was my Dell Poweredge t20 xeon converted into a workstation with slot power graphics card. I feel that may be my last predominantly windows machine ever outside of a work context. Unless you count the Xbox which has seen increased use since getting rid of my ability to play certain games on my desktop now. **

* If there needs to be proof we've entered strange times, where previous norms do not apply this is surely it!

** A problem which would largely be solved if the FC series was ported to MacOS or maybe even Linux, or if a decent football game in general graced one of these platforms.

 

[Chrius56000]

. . .It has always been my opinion that Windows XP was by far and away the most productive, reliable and consumer friendly operating system ever brought out, and if it wasn't for that fact that there aren't any good A.V./A.M. tools that run on it that will deal with today's ransomware and cyber–threats I wouldn't be using any other system – if it can be made secure with a reliable browser (NOT bloody "Edge" or "Bing!") I'd go straight back to it!

 

[jon81uk]

Unfortunately almost any PC purchase still comes with a Windows license, so even if the first thing you will do with that PC is reformat the drive and install a more usable operating system, you still have to pay for it ... perhaps there should be a regulation compelling retailers to offer consumers the choice to purchase a computer without any bundled software.

Its quite possible to buy a PC without Windows if you aren't getting from the major manufactuers/stores. I just got a gaming spec PC from a company that build to order and by default Windows was not included (I paid extra to get it alongside a warrenty etc). Generally i think those who really want Linux or similar are buying from these smaller companies or building their own instead of getting something from Currys or John Lewis.

 

[JamesT]

. . .It has always been my opinion that Windows XP was by far and away the most productive, reliable and consumer friendly operating system ever brought out, and if it wasn't for that fact that there aren't any good A.V./A.M. tools that run on it that will deal with today's ransomware and cyber–threats I wouldn't be using any other system – if it can be made secure with a reliable browser (NOT bloody "Edge" or "Bing!") I'd go straight back to it!

It's not just the presence of antivirus, there have been a whole bunch of core security improvements made over the years to reduce vulnerabilities in Windows. In the same way that Win9x ran out of steam and they had to move onto the more solid base of NT, you couldn't keep just adding bits onto XP.

 

[david1212]

I have got either 3.5" discs or CD's for Windows 3.1/3.11, 95, 98, 2000, XP & 7, also NT4. Win10 & 11 are download .iso files to load onto a USB flash drive. Note I do not have Vista or 8 .....

OT but (presuming still readable) either 5.25" or 3.5" discs of DR DOS 3.3 ( I think - the years 1987/8 ), MS DOS 4, 5 & 6.

I can run up Win 98, XP, 7, 10 & 11. Possibly 2000 too.

While I liked Windows 95 and it did so much to make PCs more user friendly, I think the real break through was the NT based Windows XP.

Indeed, one element was that XP was much more robust if just turned off and another was that adding drivers for e.g. printer, scanner, camera was much more reliable / idiot proof.

. . .It has always been my opinion that Windows XP was by far and away the most productive, reliable and consumer friendly operating system ever brought out, and if it wasn't for that fact that there aren't any good A.V./A.M. tools that run on it that will deal with today's ransomware and cyber–threats I wouldn't be using any other system – if it can be made secure with a reliable browser (NOT bloody "Edge" or "Bing!") I'd go straight back to it!

I agree. 32 bit / 4GB MB ram became a limitation. There was Win XP 64-bit but I have never seen or used it. Under the skin was it closer to XP or a predecessor to Vista? Presuming the former I still wonder where we would be now if it had been developed rather than Vista.

After XP, came along the disaster that what was Vista.

Vista was an interesting one in that it wasn’t *that* bad…except it needed decent hardware (and a couple of service packs but that was the same for XP really) to run well, but manufacturers would be forced to shove it on any old junk so it ran like a dog and hence got quite a bad reputation

Yes the big step up in the hardware required for decent performance was part of the issue but IMO it took up to Win 7 SP1 to get a robust OS. After Win XP Win 7 with SP1 particularly on later hardware is perhaps the second best OS.

In typical Microsoft good OS > bad OS > good OS cycle they then released Windows 7 followed by the dreadful Windows 8…yep let’s remove the start menu and replace it with some full screen tile nonsense!

I missed 8 completely, the few PC's work bought were immediately rolled back to 7.

It's funny to think that all those years later, we don't even have a Windows device in the house. Mostly Android, a bit of MacOS, and I'm typing this on Ubuntu.

Yes, unfortunately despite how revolutionary it might have been 30 years ago, there's not much denying that modern Windows is very poor indeed. Its sole use seems to be as a vehicle for Microsoft to increasingly invasively shove unwanted "functionality" down the throats of people who have no practical choice but to use it.

I own one Windows 11 machine and it spends most of its time sat in a cupboard, only coming out if I want to run some software that requires it...

Unfortunately almost any PC purchase still comes with a Windows license, so even if the first thing you will do with that PC is reformat the drive and install a more usable operating system, you still have to pay for it ... perhaps there should be a regulation compelling retailers to offer consumers the choice to purchase a computer without any bundled software.

I can run up Windows 10 & 11 but when MS announced Win10 and the six-monthly updates I moved to Linux as my normal home OS. I can boot & shutdown without ever getting ' Installing updates .... please wait '. While with a reasonably recent i5 / i7 CPU, at least 8GB RAM and a SSD the updates are much faster than with a Core2 or early i5/i7, 4GB RAM and a spinning HDD they are still a pain.
Initially Mint Mate as the laptop I first used was not really up to Cinnamon but now Debian KDE Plasma primarily because it scales a laptop 1920x1080 screen to 1366 x 768 so I can read it much better.

 

[JamesT]

I agree. 32 bit / 4MB ram became a limitation. There was Win XP 64-bit but I have never seen or used it. Under the skin was it closer to XP or a predecessor to Vista? Presuming the former I still wonder where we would be now if it had been developed rather than Vista.

Windows XP 64-bit was Server 2003 in drag. Eventually, it was the basis for Vista. Microsoft had some very ambitious goals which they couldn’t get to work. They were also hampered by having to shift a lot of developers over to fixing the security holes in XP, you might recall how much of a big deal XP SP2 was. So in 2004 they went back to the Server 2003 SP1 codebase and developed from there.

 

[tfw756rider]

32 bit / 4MB ram became a limitation.

4GB Or 3.25GB!

 

[Trackman]

I missed 8 completely, the few PC's work bought were immediately rolled back to 7.

Not missing anything it all.
There was so much uproar over the new GUI, they released a patch were you could change settings to make it look like Windows 7ish. Too late, the damage was done.

 

[david1212]

4GB Or 3.25GB!

Whoops .... now corrected / as you highlight little difference between fitting 2GB + 1GB or 2 x 2GB modules with a separate graphics card.
Could the onboard graphics of an early i3/i5/i7 CPU use the memory between 3.25GB & 4GB ?

Windows XP 64-bit was Server 2003 in drag. Eventually, it was the basis for Vista. Microsoft had some very ambitious goals which they couldn’t get to work. So in 2004 they went back to the Server 2003 SP1 codebase and developed from there.

Thanks. I did work with Server 2003, may have re-installed it, but didn't have any further interest.
The hardware IIRC was either Pentium 4 or Xeon, a base model Dell Poweredge Tower that looked similar to a normal desktop PC just more drive bays and a RAID controller card. As I recall while only running the basic log-in server tasks, printer manager and anti-virus manager before that was moved to a dedicated PC because OS had to be Win7 thinking back it seemed better performance than Vista on a Core2 based system.

They were also hampered by having to shift a lot of developers over to fixing the security holes in XP, you might recall how much of a big deal XP SP2 was.

From a practical aspect installing XP SP2 / SP3 did noticeably slow the system down.

 

[webbfan]

I remember seeing windows 2 demonstrated at PP micro. They had 2 windows open, both with the clock, just to show it was running them at the same time. Was exiting if a little jerky

 

[JamesT]

Whoops .... now corrected / as you highlight little difference between fitting 2GB + 1GB or 2 x 2GB.

Running a matched pair of 2GB dimms lets you run dual-channel mode with the ram, which mismatched wouldn’t. IIRC it wasn’t a hard limit at 3.25GB, it depended how hungry for I/O mapping your devices were.

 

[DM352]

I remember the launch of it at the London Docklands Arena as a kid with Start Me Up being played through loud speakers at the end of the presentation.

Was a good excuse afterwards to catch the DLR to the old Island Gardens station.

95 was quite reliable but cannot say the same for Windows 98 (or ME) that were unreliable on the then expensive Time computers desktop.

 

[Strathclyder]

You can't talk about Windows 95 without mentioning 'The Microsoft Sound' aka the system's start-up sound, possibly the best known OS start up sound of them all, barring XP:

This was recorded by Brian Eno (on a Mac, ironically enough lol) and has come to embody the step-change to personal computing that 95 represented to such a extent that it was inducted into the Library of Congress' Recordings Archive eariler this year.