5 ms·

Well it was essentially the first good GUI for PC users

by ape4 5y ago

DocTomoe 5y ago
No one who has not experienced the limitations of the 8.3 filename convention especially in office environments would understand. 255-character filenames were a game changer. Of course, you could have that on virtually any contemporary OS ... with the exception of the DOS/Windows-stack.
- iso1210 5y ago
  AT the time they were. Nowadays people barely know what a file is.
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    I almost guarantee that more people know what files are today than in 1995.
    - justsomehnguy 5y ago
      As a person who couldn't explain in a ~technical~ any terms why the XLSX file I gave isn't a "cloud one" merely hous ago... [X] Doubt
bombcar 5y ago
People forget that for a VAST majority of computer users, they may have never seen a GUI, or barely used a Mac for awhile. Many people went from DOS -> Windows 95 without stopping at Windows 3.1.
- CyberDildonics 5y ago
  That's completely ridiculous. There was an entire decade of windows before windows 95. Very few people in 1995 would have had a 10 year old 286 PC, yet never used a GUI.
  - esotericimpl 5y ago
  - dev_tty01 5y ago
    Windows 3.0 came out in 90, and 3.1 came out in 92. There was very little adoption of the earlier versions, and even 3.0 adoption was sparse. 95 came out in, well, 95. People kept computers longer and upgraded much less back then. The previous post was not ridiculous.
    - serf 5y ago
      > The previous post was not ridiculous. it kind of is when you consider Win95 as 'the first good PC gui'. people had been using OS/2 just fine, and Win3.1 was basically whatever a power user needed to be with the amount of aftermarket shells and front ends for it. A midnight commander user might argue that Win95 was the start of the 'forced-bad' GUI experience. Yes, Win95 was a nice jump in UX for the standard lay person -- but it wasn't novel in that; there were lots of options for the PC user.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Look at the numbers - a vast majority of people had no computer before Windows 95 - arguably Windows 95 is about the time computers started taking off and going mainstream. I went from a 386DX2 to a Pentium 2-class machine in one jump, simply because it wasn't affordable for quite awhile (my first actual "my" computer was Windows 98 iirc).
    - CyberDildonics 5y ago
      Look at the numbers What numbers? You just gave a single anecdote that doesn't even support what you were saying.
      - bombcar 5y ago
        https://techland.time.com/2013/05/07/a-brief-history-of-windows-sales-figures-1985-present/ https://techland.time.com/2013/05/07/a-brief-history-of-wind... Here for some - Windows 95 sold 40 million copies in its first year, way more than the install base of windows before that.
- tralarpa 5y ago
  Majority? World wide maybe, but not in the US or Western Europe. I'm looking at some old ads here from end 1993, and even their cheapest computer (a 386DX-40) came with WfW 3.11.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    People weren’t really buying computers every 3 years then. They were way too expensive for most people to do that. My first windows 95 machine replaced a 10+ year old TRS-80.
    - tralarpa 5y ago
      Are you sure you remember that period correctly? (the general situation, not your personal situation at home). Windows 3.1 was everywhere at that time. And the 386dx that I mentioned cost 1200 euro (calculated with an inflation calculator).
      - kube-system 5y ago
        Both are true. Because this was a time in which a large portion of people buying computers weren't existing computer users. 3.1 was very popular, and lots of existing computer users held on to their computers for a while. The PC market grew 100% just between 1994 and 1996.
      - justsomehnguy 5y ago
        > the general situation, not your personal situation at home My Am486DX4/100/24/850+1600/CD/EdisonGold16 was replaced by Tualeron1300/i815/256/40+80/AC97/DVDCombo *shrug_emoji*

Well it was essentially the first good GUI for PC users

by ape4 5y ago

Well it was essentially the first good GUI for PC users

No one who has not experienced the limitations of the 8.3 filename convention especially in office environments would understand. 255-character filenames were a game changer. Of course, you could have that on virtually any contemporary OS ... with the exception of the DOS/Windows-stack.

iso1210 5y ago
AT the time they were. Nowadays people barely know what a file is.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  I almost guarantee that more people know what files are today than in 1995.
  - justsomehnguy 5y ago
    As a person who couldn't explain in a ~technical~ any terms why the XLSX file I gave isn't a "cloud one" merely hous ago... [X] Doubt

bombcar 5y ago

People forget that for a VAST majority of computer users, they may have never seen a GUI, or barely used a Mac for awhile. Many people went from DOS -> Windows 95 without stopping at Windows 3.1.

CyberDildonics 5y ago
That's completely ridiculous. There was an entire decade of windows before windows 95. Very few people in 1995 would have had a 10 year old 286 PC, yet never used a GUI.
- esotericimpl 5y ago
- dev_tty01 5y ago
  Windows 3.0 came out in 90, and 3.1 came out in 92. There was very little adoption of the earlier versions, and even 3.0 adoption was sparse. 95 came out in, well, 95. People kept computers longer and upgraded much less back then. The previous post was not ridiculous.
  - serf 5y ago
    > The previous post was not ridiculous. it kind of is when you consider Win95 as 'the first good PC gui'. people had been using OS/2 just fine, and Win3.1 was basically whatever a power user needed to be with the amount of aftermarket shells and front ends for it. A midnight commander user might argue that Win95 was the start of the 'forced-bad' GUI experience. Yes, Win95 was a nice jump in UX for the standard lay person -- but it wasn't novel in that; there were lots of options for the PC user.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Look at the numbers - a vast majority of people had no computer before Windows 95 - arguably Windows 95 is about the time computers started taking off and going mainstream. I went from a 386DX2 to a Pentium 2-class machine in one jump, simply because it wasn't affordable for quite awhile (my first actual "my" computer was Windows 98 iirc).
  - CyberDildonics 5y ago
    Look at the numbers What numbers? You just gave a single anecdote that doesn't even support what you were saying.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      https://techland.time.com/2013/05/07/a-brief-history-of-windows-sales-figures-1985-present/ https://techland.time.com/2013/05/07/a-brief-history-of-wind... Here for some - Windows 95 sold 40 million copies in its first year, way more than the install base of windows before that.
tralarpa 5y ago
Majority? World wide maybe, but not in the US or Western Europe. I'm looking at some old ads here from end 1993, and even their cheapest computer (a 386DX-40) came with WfW 3.11.
- kube-system 5y ago
  People weren’t really buying computers every 3 years then. They were way too expensive for most people to do that. My first windows 95 machine replaced a 10+ year old TRS-80.
  - tralarpa 5y ago
    Are you sure you remember that period correctly? (the general situation, not your personal situation at home). Windows 3.1 was everywhere at that time. And the 386dx that I mentioned cost 1200 euro (calculated with an inflation calculator).
    - kube-system 5y ago
      Both are true. Because this was a time in which a large portion of people buying computers weren't existing computer users. 3.1 was very popular, and lots of existing computer users held on to their computers for a while. The PC market grew 100% just between 1994 and 1996.
    - justsomehnguy 5y ago
      > the general situation, not your personal situation at home My Am486DX4/100/24/850+1600/CD/EdisonGold16 was replaced by Tualeron1300/i815/256/40+80/AC97/DVDCombo *shrug_emoji*