cross-posted from: https://lemmy.capebreton.social/post/347724

Windows 95 is a consumer-oriented operating system developed by Microsoft as part of its Windows 9x family of operating systems. The first operating system in the 9x family, it is the successor to Windows 3.1x, and was released to manufacturing on July 14, 1995, and generally to retail on August 24, 1995, almost three months after the release of Windows NT 3.51.

Windows 95 is the first version of Microsoft Windows to include taskbar, start button, and accessing the internet. Windows 95 merged Microsoft’s formerly separate MS-DOS and Microsoft Windows products, and featured significant improvements over its predecessor, most notably in the graphical user interface (GUI) and in its simplified “plug-and-play” features. There were also major changes made to the core components of the operating system, such as moving from a mainly cooperatively multitasked 16-bit architecture to a 32-bit preemptive multitasking architecture, at least when running only 32-bit protected mode applications.

Accompanied by an extensive marketing campaign,Windows 95 introduced numerous functions and features that were featured in later Windows versions, and continue in modern variations to this day, such as the taskbar, notification area, and the “Start” button. It is considered to be one of the biggest and most important products in the personal computing industry.

  • mindbleach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

    Seriously though, this is the first properly good UI for a desktop computer. Mac OS (or I guess Macintosh OS at the time) was okay, but reliant on the global menu and weird drop-downs. Windows kept everything self-contained. Even multi-window programs tended to use the “multiple document interface,” i.e., windows inside windows. Tabs weren’t really a thing yet.

    It also crashed if you looked at it funny and had the antivirus capabilities of warm cheese. But there’s damn good reasons Windows 7 was the same experience, extended, rather than replaced. It’s more-or-less what I style Linux to look like. And in light of that I’m kinda pissed off any OS ever struggles to remain responsive, when this relic ran smoothly on one stick of RAM that’s smaller than my CPU’s cache.

    • irdc@derp.foo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mac OS (…) was okay, but reliant on the global menu and weird drop-downs.

      See Fitt’s law for why the Mac’s menu bar is the way it is.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In its basic form, Fitts’s law says that targets a user has to hit should be as big as possible.

        Dear god, my biggest beef with using a smart phone is that UI designers 1) love to have tiny buttons for shit, and 2) the tappable areas for those buttons are almost never made larger than their tiny graphics, so it’s a bitch to actually tap them.

        I used to be a mobile app developer, and when I wrote apps by myself I would always expand the tappable areas so they were easy to hit with fat fingers. My last job was working for a huge cable company (maybe the name rhymes with “bombast”) and whenever I expanded the tappable area of a tiny button the UI designers would pitch a fit and insist that that not be done. Management would agree with them on the grounds that expanding the tappable area would require too much time to implement - and then they’d order me to spend even more time un-implementing it.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Something that irritates me in desktop design is, there’s a clickable icon. There’s no box around it to represent a button, just the icon on a blank background. You move your mouse towards the icon. When you get close to the icon, a box appears around it. You take this to mean “this object will be interacted with when you click the mouse.” You click the mouse. Nothing is achieved. You have to move the mouse into the actual borders of the icon, it’s just that now icons get visibly excited that you might pick them.

          • mindbleach@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Windows 95 legitimately had better UI than that “Material” bullshit, via relief shading conveyed through four fucking colors. The hierarchy of elements is instantly visible. Buttons even popped in and out when clicked. There’s just no excuse for how minimalism fetishists have taken over user experience.

    • FederatedSaint@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It really was a game changer. I remember the excitement of getting it for the first time after using windows 3.1.