> 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

> 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.