5 ms·

I wonder why he doesn't use Linux, seems he could build whatever he needs and forget the bloatware of windows. Specially with a distribution like Gentoo he coul

by lpgauth 18y ago

I wonder why he doesn't use Linux, seems he could build whatever he needs and forget the bloatware of windows. Specially with a distribution like Gentoo he could build a custom system and not have to have the technology drawbacks of Windows 95.

rufo 18y ago
That was my first thought as well: "Hasn't he ever heard of Linux?" But then again, if he's got all the apps he needs, running as well as he needs them, and isn't bothered by being unable to run newer applications (which he pretty clearly states at the end of the essay): well, more power to him, I guess...
- brandonkm 18y ago
  Exactly. This is definitely one of those cases of use whatever works for you. I really can't fathom using windows 95, but reading over his reasons for doing so it seems like those are valid reasons for him. Still makes for an interesting read on a os no one ever really talks about anymore.
deathbyzen 18y ago
He wants to play old DOS games natively. I bought a surplus PC ($40) for just that reason as well, so I can understand.
- juanpablo 18y ago
  http://www.dosbox.com http://www.dosbox.com
  - william42 18y ago
    Hell, http://www.winehq.org http://www.winehq.org
  - deathbyzen 18y ago
    Again, I wanted to do it the old fashioned way. It just feels nice to start up the old dos prompt and type "rott"
jncraton 18y ago
Because X is client-server based, it actually performs much worse than Windows 95. That might be one of the issues he would have with using Linux. It's very high performance as a server platform, but it does a little worse as a consumer OS.
- jrockway 18y ago
  An article about Windows 95, and a comment spewing FUD from the Windows 95 era. How appropriate. Anyway, I doubt any overhead of the X protocol is visible on a modern machine. With two cores, the client and server can both run at the same time, and server operations are so fast you wouldn't notice anyway. I certainly don't notice any delay, although I do see that X has used 495 minutes of CPU time on my machine (in 9 days). (Compare that to 285 minutes of CPU time that emacs has used, and 137 that Firefox has used.)
reazalun 18y ago
I have to agree with you. I believe that guy can be even more productive with very lightweight distros like Puppy Linux and Damn Small Linux. Yes, with today's hardwares, Win 95 is fast in performance. But I believe Puppy Linux (just 88 MB) in my USB drive performs a lot better than Win 95.

by lpgauth 18y ago

rufo 18y ago

That was my first thought as well: "Hasn't he ever heard of Linux?" But then again, if he's got all the apps he needs, running as well as he needs them, and isn't bothered by being unable to run newer applications (which he pretty clearly states at the end of the essay): well, more power to him, I guess...

brandonkm 18y ago
Exactly. This is definitely one of those cases of use whatever works for you. I really can't fathom using windows 95, but reading over his reasons for doing so it seems like those are valid reasons for him. Still makes for an interesting read on a os no one ever really talks about anymore.

deathbyzen 18y ago

He wants to play old DOS games natively. I bought a surplus PC ($40) for just that reason as well, so I can understand.

juanpablo 18y ago
http://www.dosbox.com http://www.dosbox.com
- william42 18y ago
  Hell, http://www.winehq.org http://www.winehq.org
- deathbyzen 18y ago
  Again, I wanted to do it the old fashioned way. It just feels nice to start up the old dos prompt and type "rott"

jncraton 18y ago

Because X is client-server based, it actually performs much worse than Windows 95. That might be one of the issues he would have with using Linux. It's very high performance as a server platform, but it does a little worse as a consumer OS.

jrockway 18y ago
An article about Windows 95, and a comment spewing FUD from the Windows 95 era. How appropriate. Anyway, I doubt any overhead of the X protocol is visible on a modern machine. With two cores, the client and server can both run at the same time, and server operations are so fast you wouldn't notice anyway. I certainly don't notice any delay, although I do see that X has used 495 minutes of CPU time on my machine (in 9 days). (Compare that to 285 minutes of CPU time that emacs has used, and 137 that Firefox has used.)

reazalun 18y ago

I have to agree with you. I believe that guy can be even more productive with very lightweight distros like Puppy Linux and Damn Small Linux. Yes, with today's hardwares, Win 95 is fast in performance. But I believe Puppy Linux (just 88 MB) in my USB drive performs a lot better than Win 95.