5 ms·

I think some of this is rose-tinted nostalgia. For many people, Win 95 was paired with 486s with 8 MB RAM or early underpowered Pentiums with hardly any more.

by sho_hn 2y ago

I think some of this is rose-tinted nostalgia. For many people, Win 95 was paired with 486s with 8 MB RAM or early underpowered Pentiums with hardly any more. Opening the start menu would sometimes take seconds, like the computer had to ponder for a while. Applications frequently had to sit in waiting as the spinning rust slowly volunteered some data. Things are much better now.

a_random_canuck 2y ago
100%. Even just loading files off the old spinning disks took ages. Loading screens for a game could take 5-10 minutes. Even just booting into my Linux box took 3-5 minutes and optimizing the boot time was a whole thing you spent a lot of time on. I remember the day I received my first SSD and installed it in my computer, it was like Christmas morning. Things are way faster now.
- SkipperCat 2y ago
  I had a friend who supported a Windows desktop environment in the 90's. He would constantly complain about how rebooting a workstation would take over 20 minutes. The amount of scripts and other tooling was nutz. My Macbook goes off when I shut the lid and right back on when I open it up. Try doing that on my early 90's Toshiba Satellite. We live in a magical world now of high speed, multi-core and NVMe hardware. I have no desire to ever go back.
  - kaydub 2y ago
    It honestly gives me a warm fuzzy feeling thinking about how blazing fast personal computers are these days. It's instantaneous compared to the 90s and even the 2000s. It wasn't until 2010-2012 that I remember switching to SSD, which is when I feel the turning point was.
    - oxidant 2y ago
      I had a netbook around this time and putting an SSD in it was a HUGE upgrade (similarly the upgrade from 2 to 4GB RAM). I still have it, and when I put an 32bit version of Debian on it a couple years ago, it was molasses. Somehow I used it for years with no complaints.
      - SkipperCat 2y ago
        When I upgraded my Windows laptop (running Windows NT) from something like 64 MB to 128 MB, it made a huge difference. Most of the benefit was that it stopped using swap. Sadly, I was borrowing the the DIMM from my boss and I had to give it back. It was like flying back on coach after getting there in first class.
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    That reminds me that 10 years ago, I could close a (Windows, Linux) laptop and open it a couple of days later and it would instantly turn on, using the amazing S3 sleep. Doing the same these days and... the laptop doesn't turn on at all, because the battery is dead (caused by modern standby). Yay, progress!
  - musicale 2y ago
    > My Macbook goes off when I shut the lid and right back on when I open it up. Try doing that on my early 90's Toshiba Satellite. Even the first Mac Portable[1] had fast sleep/wake. As did the Radio Shack Model 100[2] from the early 1980s. Early Apple laptops could spin down the hard drive (vs. modern Macs where you can't easily shut off I/O-intensive background daemons like mdworker, syspolicyd, photoanalysisd, etc.; fortunately SSDs mitigate the issue somewhat.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Portable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Portable [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100
paulddraper 2y ago
Booting itself was several minutes. And I had one machine where Word took multiple minutes to start, never knew why. Maybe if I defrag for the umpteenth time. --- And significantly less reliable. Remember how common crashes were? (Including BSoD!) Like, you can solve 90% of memory crashes by using a memory managed language but that is course has costs.
- xyzzyz 2y ago
  I clearly remember that booting Windows 95 on my 386SX was under one minute. I remember measuring this.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - slavik81 2y ago
    The 386SX ran at 16 MHz, was seven years old at the release of Windows 95 and was slightly below the stated minimum system requirements. By contrast, I had a 166 MHz Pentium (released four months after Windows 95) and I remember it being slow enough that I would go do something else while it booted. I see references that mention that installing fonts can significantly impact boot time. Maybe the installed software and devices had a significant impact.
Dalewyn 2y ago
Windows 95 running on a modern day computer would be bloody fast. The fact of the matter is the hardware has gotten faster and the software has gotten slower, cancelling each other out at best and slowing down at worst.
szszrk 2y ago
I use an overpowered (for my type of job) modern i7 computer with 32G of ram and modern 1TB ssd. It still does take several seconds to open start menu, same for calculator. Explorer takes sometimes a minute so I have a different file manager open constantly. The trick is to combine windows with any type of DLP enterprise software. It consistently delivers this horrible experience. But aside from poor enterprise setups, try opening win11 start menu on a computer that has internet, just veeery slow. Suddenly you will miss those times of win95 loading start menu icons one by one, with a soundtrack of scrubbing HDD. I don't miss those times purely because of huge stability differences. 20 years ago or so, systems crashed all the time and filesystems had to be repaired constantly. I even clearly recall how often was a kernel panic on random Linux distro, when you tried early docker.
- raverbashing 2y ago
  Yeah Windows 11 is a bag of delays and buggy interfaces (and telemetry) It's frankly ridiculous how everything "kinda seems to work" but not really
  - tim333 2y ago
    Yeah. Re the >yet computers don't feel much faster it depends on the computer rather. The slowest I've experienced was a cheap laptop with Windows Vista where just right clicking on an icon to see the menu could take like 30 seconds. I'm now on an M1 macbook air where everything is pretty much instant. That said the other instant computer I had was a Psion 3 which came out 33 years ago so it's down to the individual design I guess. Windows has always been kind of bad to varying degrees.
- dubcee349 2y ago
  the most important part of speed these days is NVRAM not just a SSD. If you are using a standard SSD things will still be much slower.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    I think something is very wrong when a Linux installation gets more responsive and Windows installation gets slower as time passes and software gets updated. I can still run a Debian 12 with KDE on a standard SSD way faster than a Win 11 installation on a NVMe, and that installation is 8 years old, and runs tons of applications at any given time.
spixy 2y ago
There was a side by side comparision video (on twitter, cannot find) with Win11 with modern HW and Win98 with then-modern HW, cmd, explorer, notepad, paints, calculator all started instantly on older Windows, while on 11 every app has startup delay, and then also "paint UI so its all shown and responsive" delay. Also hardware input lag definitely isnt better, and many times worse than in past: https://danluu.com/input-lag https://danluu.com/input-lag
fire_lake 2y ago
Imagine if the code had barely changed from 95 to now but we took all of the hardware improvements.
M95D 2y ago
Win95 keeps the start menu entirely in memory. I dare you to prove that it can take a second on any 386+ machine.
hollandheese 2y ago
Have you used Windows 11? Like literally, I have a Pentium MMX 200 Mhz (64 MB RAM, 8 GB CF Card) machine right next to my Surface Pro 9 (i5 1235U, 16GB RAM, 2 TB SSD). The Pentium (running Windows 98 SE) demolishes my Surface Pro 9 (running Windows 11) in opening applications, and UI latency. I can literally open about 30 copies of Windows Explorer before Windows 11 opens a single one. Honestly the only thing that's really slower is booting since it takes forever in the BIOS stage. Modern software is just slow. We've given up all of the advantages of our orders of magnitude faster I/O.

by sho_hn 2y ago

a_random_canuck 2y ago

100%. Even just loading files off the old spinning disks took ages. Loading screens for a game could take 5-10 minutes. Even just booting into my Linux box took 3-5 minutes and optimizing the boot time was a whole thing you spent a lot of time on. I remember the day I received my first SSD and installed it in my computer, it was like Christmas morning. Things are way faster now.

SkipperCat 2y ago
I had a friend who supported a Windows desktop environment in the 90's. He would constantly complain about how rebooting a workstation would take over 20 minutes. The amount of scripts and other tooling was nutz. My Macbook goes off when I shut the lid and right back on when I open it up. Try doing that on my early 90's Toshiba Satellite. We live in a magical world now of high speed, multi-core and NVMe hardware. I have no desire to ever go back.
- kaydub 2y ago
  It honestly gives me a warm fuzzy feeling thinking about how blazing fast personal computers are these days. It's instantaneous compared to the 90s and even the 2000s. It wasn't until 2010-2012 that I remember switching to SSD, which is when I feel the turning point was.
  - oxidant 2y ago
    I had a netbook around this time and putting an SSD in it was a HUGE upgrade (similarly the upgrade from 2 to 4GB RAM). I still have it, and when I put an 32bit version of Debian on it a couple years ago, it was molasses. Somehow I used it for years with no complaints.
    - SkipperCat 2y ago
      When I upgraded my Windows laptop (running Windows NT) from something like 64 MB to 128 MB, it made a huge difference. Most of the benefit was that it stopped using swap. Sadly, I was borrowing the the DIMM from my boss and I had to give it back. It was like flying back on coach after getting there in first class.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  That reminds me that 10 years ago, I could close a (Windows, Linux) laptop and open it a couple of days later and it would instantly turn on, using the amazing S3 sleep. Doing the same these days and... the laptop doesn't turn on at all, because the battery is dead (caused by modern standby). Yay, progress!
- musicale 2y ago
  > My Macbook goes off when I shut the lid and right back on when I open it up. Try doing that on my early 90's Toshiba Satellite. Even the first Mac Portable[1] had fast sleep/wake. As did the Radio Shack Model 100[2] from the early 1980s. Early Apple laptops could spin down the hard drive (vs. modern Macs where you can't easily shut off I/O-intensive background daemons like mdworker, syspolicyd, photoanalysisd, etc.; fortunately SSDs mitigate the issue somewhat.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Portable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Portable [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100

paulddraper 2y ago

Booting itself was several minutes. And I had one machine where Word took multiple minutes to start, never knew why. Maybe if I defrag for the umpteenth time. --- And significantly less reliable. Remember how common crashes were? (Including BSoD!) Like, you can solve 90% of memory crashes by using a memory managed language but that is course has costs.

xyzzyz 2y ago
I clearly remember that booting Windows 95 on my 386SX was under one minute. I remember measuring this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- slavik81 2y ago
  The 386SX ran at 16 MHz, was seven years old at the release of Windows 95 and was slightly below the stated minimum system requirements. By contrast, I had a 166 MHz Pentium (released four months after Windows 95) and I remember it being slow enough that I would go do something else while it booted. I see references that mention that installing fonts can significantly impact boot time. Maybe the installed software and devices had a significant impact.

Dalewyn 2y ago

Windows 95 running on a modern day computer would be bloody fast. The fact of the matter is the hardware has gotten faster and the software has gotten slower, cancelling each other out at best and slowing down at worst.

szszrk 2y ago

I use an overpowered (for my type of job) modern i7 computer with 32G of ram and modern 1TB ssd. It still does take several seconds to open start menu, same for calculator. Explorer takes sometimes a minute so I have a different file manager open constantly. The trick is to combine windows with any type of DLP enterprise software. It consistently delivers this horrible experience. But aside from poor enterprise setups, try opening win11 start menu on a computer that has internet, just veeery slow. Suddenly you will miss those times of win95 loading start menu icons one by one, with a soundtrack of scrubbing HDD. I don't miss those times purely because of huge stability differences. 20 years ago or so, systems crashed all the time and filesystems had to be repaired constantly. I even clearly recall how often was a kernel panic on random Linux distro, when you tried early docker.

raverbashing 2y ago
Yeah Windows 11 is a bag of delays and buggy interfaces (and telemetry) It's frankly ridiculous how everything "kinda seems to work" but not really
- tim333 2y ago
  Yeah. Re the >yet computers don't feel much faster it depends on the computer rather. The slowest I've experienced was a cheap laptop with Windows Vista where just right clicking on an icon to see the menu could take like 30 seconds. I'm now on an M1 macbook air where everything is pretty much instant. That said the other instant computer I had was a Psion 3 which came out 33 years ago so it's down to the individual design I guess. Windows has always been kind of bad to varying degrees.
dubcee349 2y ago
the most important part of speed these days is NVRAM not just a SSD. If you are using a standard SSD things will still be much slower.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  I think something is very wrong when a Linux installation gets more responsive and Windows installation gets slower as time passes and software gets updated. I can still run a Debian 12 with KDE on a standard SSD way faster than a Win 11 installation on a NVMe, and that installation is 8 years old, and runs tons of applications at any given time.

spixy 2y ago

There was a side by side comparision video (on twitter, cannot find) with Win11 with modern HW and Win98 with then-modern HW, cmd, explorer, notepad, paints, calculator all started instantly on older Windows, while on 11 every app has startup delay, and then also "paint UI so its all shown and responsive" delay. Also hardware input lag definitely isnt better, and many times worse than in past: https://danluu.com/input-lag https://danluu.com/input-lag

fire_lake 2y ago

Imagine if the code had barely changed from 95 to now but we took all of the hardware improvements.

M95D 2y ago

Win95 keeps the start menu entirely in memory. I dare you to prove that it can take a second on any 386+ machine.

hollandheese 2y ago

Have you used Windows 11? Like literally, I have a Pentium MMX 200 Mhz (64 MB RAM, 8 GB CF Card) machine right next to my Surface Pro 9 (i5 1235U, 16GB RAM, 2 TB SSD). The Pentium (running Windows 98 SE) demolishes my Surface Pro 9 (running Windows 11) in opening applications, and UI latency. I can literally open about 30 copies of Windows Explorer before Windows 11 opens a single one. Honestly the only thing that's really slower is booting since it takes forever in the BIOS stage. Modern software is just slow. We've given up all of the advantages of our orders of magnitude faster I/O.