Re: "Progress, eh?"
"It was inferior to NT 3.5"
Technically it was streets ahead: multi-CPU support, NTFS, not prone to crash, proper multitasking.
Then again - NT 3.5 didn't support PCMCIA or APM, so it wasn't fit for laptops; it required 2x HDD space (vs Win95); it was a memory hog requiring 2-3 times RAM - average home/office computers back then didn't meet the minimum specs - but Win95 did.
Win95 also supported DOS games and other software that expected lower level hw access - any/most graphical software didn't work in NT. Backwards compatibility is a big plus, after all.
"not much advantage over a decently installed Win3.11 or WFWG3.11 with 32 bit TCP/IP, disk, video drivers, VFW, Real Player and Win32s"
Eh, not very many here would count Real Player as an advantage. Windows Media Player, Xing Player - even ITunes was less invasive than Real.
Multitasking was way better. Windows 3.1 was co-operative while Win95 moved to pre-emptive multitasking.
With Windows 3.1 formatting a disk while transferring data via modem was just impossible. Not so in Win95.
"DirectX looked very like it was designed to allow easy porting of DOS games rather than being a well designed graphics system."
Any reference to this? Wiki article on DirectX makes no such mention.
"Win95 was missing the OpenGL already on NT."
Non-issue - graphics drivers implemented OpenGL.
"Win95 set back Win 32 security and NT. It should only have been sold for gaming & home and was a menace in offices."
Can't disagree there.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
