3 ms·

I will say, Windows 95 was pretty great, I identify with the Microsoft customer in the hero image. I'm gathering notes to write a GUI toolkit which only makes w

I will say, Windows 95 was pretty great, I identify with the Microsoft customer in the hero image. I'm gathering notes to write a GUI toolkit which only makes well-formed Windows 95-style UIs.

protomyth 7y ago
Maybe my memory is a bit rose colored, but I still think NT 4.0 was great. Win 95 interface and rock solid OS.
- zabzonk 7y ago
  Windows 2000 was even more rock-solid. I used to run it on a couple of Sony Vaio laptops and I never had a blue screen.
  - protomyth 7y ago
    Didn't they move the video driver back into the kernel in 2000?
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      Yeah, but they actually worked so it was fine. Of course, I will not attest to any architectural advantage of NT, especially today. Everything from the filesystem to the schedulers to the memory management... it all leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe with Genode coming along, we'll get a serviceable seL4 desktop that I can run my Chicago-style UI on. :- ) My impression of the eventual ideal is that the formally-verified stuff can be allowed into the kernel, if there is some valid reason to do so; and everything else can sit elsewhere.
      - mmis1000 7y ago
        At least in recently windows10 preview, patch kernel memory area itself was no longer allowed, only hooks are allowed to be used to alter the kernel behavior (thus breaking some silly anti cheat engine). And it also comes with a option to enforce these with virtualization. So yes, it is ongoing. But not Kernel -> Userspace. Instead it is Hypervisor mode Kernel(?) -> Kernel.
    - zabzonk 7y ago
      I'm not commenting on the OS architecture, just my quite extensive user experience.
- jdsully 7y ago
  You were definitely living in the future with NT 4.0. But the memory requirements were way too high for the average home user to afford it. Win95 was a bridge into this modern new world of applications protected from each other.
duxup 7y ago
I was pretty excited too. I even installed it with floppies on a laptop. I wasn't concerned with anything the article was about at the time. It just felt like the PC OS world took a jump into the future... even if the reason I mostly felt that way was the UI and etc.

I will say, Windows 95 was pretty great, I identify with the Microsoft customer in the hero image. I'm gathering notes to write a GUI toolkit which only makes well-formed Windows 95-style UIs.

protomyth 7y ago

Maybe my memory is a bit rose colored, but I still think NT 4.0 was great. Win 95 interface and rock solid OS.

zabzonk 7y ago
Windows 2000 was even more rock-solid. I used to run it on a couple of Sony Vaio laptops and I never had a blue screen.
- protomyth 7y ago
  Didn't they move the video driver back into the kernel in 2000?
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    Yeah, but they actually worked so it was fine. Of course, I will not attest to any architectural advantage of NT, especially today. Everything from the filesystem to the schedulers to the memory management... it all leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe with Genode coming along, we'll get a serviceable seL4 desktop that I can run my Chicago-style UI on. :- ) My impression of the eventual ideal is that the formally-verified stuff can be allowed into the kernel, if there is some valid reason to do so; and everything else can sit elsewhere.
    - mmis1000 7y ago
      At least in recently windows10 preview, patch kernel memory area itself was no longer allowed, only hooks are allowed to be used to alter the kernel behavior (thus breaking some silly anti cheat engine). And it also comes with a option to enforce these with virtualization. So yes, it is ongoing. But not Kernel -> Userspace. Instead it is Hypervisor mode Kernel(?) -> Kernel.
  - zabzonk 7y ago
    I'm not commenting on the OS architecture, just my quite extensive user experience.
jdsully 7y ago
You were definitely living in the future with NT 4.0. But the memory requirements were way too high for the average home user to afford it. Win95 was a bridge into this modern new world of applications protected from each other.

duxup 7y ago

I was pretty excited too. I even installed it with floppies on a laptop. I wasn't concerned with anything the article was about at the time. It just felt like the PC OS world took a jump into the future... even if the reason I mostly felt that way was the UI and etc.