3 ms·

Windows 95 booted into DOS first, loaded any DOS device drivers in CONFIG.SYS and then automatically ran WIN.COM to launch the Windows 95 shell. At that point

Windows 95 booted into DOS first, loaded any DOS device drivers in CONFIG.SYS and then automatically ran WIN.COM to launch the Windows 95 shell. At that point the system dropped into protected mode and was 32bit native operating system. However there was still 16bit DOS code and 16bit Windows code running. Windows 95 could easily be thought of as a very advanced DOS application. I disagree with the author when he says "we didn't know better". Windows 95, as it was designed, was necessary. It had to be able to run on the hardware (and with the drivers) of machines at the time and run existing DOS and Windows 3.1 software.

hnlmorg 6y ago
> Windows 95 could easily be thought of as a very advanced DOS application. "Easily"...perhaps, but not accurately. It would be like arguing that Linux is a very advanced GRUB application or that DOS was a very advanced BIOS application. The fact remains that while DOS was an essential component for bootstrapping Windows 9x, Windows did still manage it's own memory, resources, etc independently of DOS. Sure, Windows managed it's memory in a way that was sympathetic of DOS applications (basically using DOS layouts wholesale for 16bit applications) but that was a requirement of the era. But you see similar examples of standards being used as a based (for compatibility) and then expanded upon in the Linux/UNIX world with Linux and macOS having POSIX components but support for so much more added on top. > I disagree with the author when he says "we didn't know better" I disagree with the author there to but for very different reasons than you. In the 90s we already had OS/2 (who's DOS emulation was so sophisticated that it could run Windows 3.1). Not to mention a whole boat load of better home computers than IBM-clones, such as Acorn Archimedes, Apple Mac, Atari ST, Amigas (funny how they all begin with 'A'). By the late 90s there was BeOS too. Windows 9x always felt like the shittiest desktop offering to pretty much anyone who'd used pretty much any other computer that wasn't an IBM-clone. So yeah, some of us did know better. But that didn't stop the IBM/Microsoft partnership from monopolising the desktop market. :( Windows 2000 was the first (and, frankly, only) time I ever felt impressed by a Microsoft OS. Then they went and ruining it with all the bling in XP (for those who weren't aware, the first release of XP was basically just a skinned version of Windows 2000 but which required literally twice the system resources to run. It wasn't until somewhere around service pack 2 or 3 before XP became the platform that everyone identifies with these days).
- wvenable 6y ago
  > The fact remains that while DOS was an essential component for bootstrapping Windows 9x, Windows did still manage it's own memory, resources, etc independently of DOS. Windows 95 would round-trip some calls through DOS so that it was possible to use DOS device drivers in Windows 95. There were also many 32bit applications for DOS that used DOS extenders (which Windows 95 also was) to manage memory and resources and call back into DOS as necessary. They would also do their own hardware calls, etc. If those are 32bit DOS applications than I would still argue is accurate (but a stretch) to call Windows 95 one as well. > Not to mention a whole boat load of better home computers than IBM-clones, such as Acorn Archimedes, Apple Mac, Atari ST, Amigas (funny how they all begin with 'A'). In this era, many of these machines didn't even use protected memory. There is no comparison -- these proprietary systems didn't stand a chance.
  - hnlmorg 6y ago
    Well yeah, DOS drivers are clearly going to be run through a DOS subsystem. That shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. But you could easily run Windows 95 without DOS drivers (and particularly if you don’t plan on running DOS applications). You have to bare in mind that Windows 95 was the first time Microsoft had asked desktop developers to switch away from DOS and given Windows graphics and sound API calls were still pretty unoptimised and that the platform as a whole was new, it’s understandable that it took some developers a few years to turn their backs on DOS (particularly games developers). But please don’t mistake developer pragmatism for Windows being a DOS shell. Windows 95 was actually a very clever design evolution and an OS in its own right. And yeah some of the early 90s competitors didn’t have protected memory, but neither did Windows 3.x. Some did have preemptive multitasking back when Windows didn’t (Win 95 introduced that), and other features Windows sorely missed too. I’ll agree with Windows 95 did up the game somewhat but frankly Microsoft needed to.
  - anthk 6y ago
    Neither did protected memory Windows 95 or Windows 98. Page faults with Windows 95 and even Windows 98SE were the norm.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
fortran77 6y ago
oh! I guess Linux was built "on top of LiLo" or GRUB

hnlmorg 6y ago

> Windows 95 could easily be thought of as a very advanced DOS application. "Easily"...perhaps, but not accurately. It would be like arguing that Linux is a very advanced GRUB application or that DOS was a very advanced BIOS application. The fact remains that while DOS was an essential component for bootstrapping Windows 9x, Windows did still manage it's own memory, resources, etc independently of DOS. Sure, Windows managed it's memory in a way that was sympathetic of DOS applications (basically using DOS layouts wholesale for 16bit applications) but that was a requirement of the era. But you see similar examples of standards being used as a based (for compatibility) and then expanded upon in the Linux/UNIX world with Linux and macOS having POSIX components but support for so much more added on top. > I disagree with the author when he says "we didn't know better" I disagree with the author there to but for very different reasons than you. In the 90s we already had OS/2 (who's DOS emulation was so sophisticated that it could run Windows 3.1). Not to mention a whole boat load of better home computers than IBM-clones, such as Acorn Archimedes, Apple Mac, Atari ST, Amigas (funny how they all begin with 'A'). By the late 90s there was BeOS too. Windows 9x always felt like the shittiest desktop offering to pretty much anyone who'd used pretty much any other computer that wasn't an IBM-clone. So yeah, some of us did know better. But that didn't stop the IBM/Microsoft partnership from monopolising the desktop market. :( Windows 2000 was the first (and, frankly, only) time I ever felt impressed by a Microsoft OS. Then they went and ruining it with all the bling in XP (for those who weren't aware, the first release of XP was basically just a skinned version of Windows 2000 but which required literally twice the system resources to run. It wasn't until somewhere around service pack 2 or 3 before XP became the platform that everyone identifies with these days).

wvenable 6y ago
> The fact remains that while DOS was an essential component for bootstrapping Windows 9x, Windows did still manage it's own memory, resources, etc independently of DOS. Windows 95 would round-trip some calls through DOS so that it was possible to use DOS device drivers in Windows 95. There were also many 32bit applications for DOS that used DOS extenders (which Windows 95 also was) to manage memory and resources and call back into DOS as necessary. They would also do their own hardware calls, etc. If those are 32bit DOS applications than I would still argue is accurate (but a stretch) to call Windows 95 one as well. > Not to mention a whole boat load of better home computers than IBM-clones, such as Acorn Archimedes, Apple Mac, Atari ST, Amigas (funny how they all begin with 'A'). In this era, many of these machines didn't even use protected memory. There is no comparison -- these proprietary systems didn't stand a chance.
- hnlmorg 6y ago
  Well yeah, DOS drivers are clearly going to be run through a DOS subsystem. That shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. But you could easily run Windows 95 without DOS drivers (and particularly if you don’t plan on running DOS applications). You have to bare in mind that Windows 95 was the first time Microsoft had asked desktop developers to switch away from DOS and given Windows graphics and sound API calls were still pretty unoptimised and that the platform as a whole was new, it’s understandable that it took some developers a few years to turn their backs on DOS (particularly games developers). But please don’t mistake developer pragmatism for Windows being a DOS shell. Windows 95 was actually a very clever design evolution and an OS in its own right. And yeah some of the early 90s competitors didn’t have protected memory, but neither did Windows 3.x. Some did have preemptive multitasking back when Windows didn’t (Win 95 introduced that), and other features Windows sorely missed too. I’ll agree with Windows 95 did up the game somewhat but frankly Microsoft needed to.
- anthk 6y ago
  Neither did protected memory Windows 95 or Windows 98. Page faults with Windows 95 and even Windows 98SE were the norm.
goatinaboat 6y ago

fortran77 6y ago

oh! I guess Linux was built "on top of LiLo" or GRUB