4 ms·

That was in large part because the CPUs they run on lacked hardware memory protection and any process could crash and take everything else down with it. No hard

That was in large part because the CPUs they run on lacked hardware memory protection and any process could crash and take everything else down with it. No hardware support and no support for those features in the OS. That changed quickly as the CPUs improved. All the UNIXes of the time run on CPUs with memory protection and never crashed.

Zak 2y ago
As I understand it, the Intel 386 had it and would run Windows NT. Making Windows 95 (which required a 386 or better) a separate product was a business decision, not a technical one. Without doing a bunch of research, it looks like things were more split on the Mac side; some Mac models had fancy MMUs while others didn't until the switch to PowerPC. Classic Mac OS didn't support memory protection, and Apple's quest for a replacement operating system cumulating in the acquisition of NeXT is well known.
- kbolino 2y ago
  The 386 was technically enough to run NT, but the additional features of the operating system demanded additional resources, making it sluggish on the hardware most home users actually had. NT also couldn't use drivers written for DOS or Windows 3.x. Conversely, Windows 9x could have made more aggressive use of the processor's protected mode, but it would have broken a lot of programs that worked fine on Windows 3.x. Windows 9x was still capable of running most 16-bit real mode software and generally allowed it to access BIOS and hardware, which NT couldn't allow without breaking the security model. Many "enterprise" customers even stayed on 9x instead of NT simply because it ran the software they used. It took another few years before the hardware got fast enough and the software base moved to mostly 32-bit protected-mode code to merge the two product lines. However, there were still problems when it finally happened with XP.
  - Zak 2y ago
    It was probably a good business decision. Microsoft is famous for commercial success despite the hacker crowd typically having unfavorable opinions about their products. The best example that comes to mind for me is Windows 95 having a special case in its memory management to work around a bug in SimCity. From a technical perspective, that's nuts, but from a business perspective I imagine not doing that would have hurt both immediate sales and consumer trust in the brand.
    - kbolino 2y ago
      I guess the line between "business" and "technical" reasons here is a little blurry. Keeping SimCity or any other widely used program working through "hacks" doesn't seem nearly as bonkers in the days before widespread high-speed Internet access. Even if Maxis did patch their game, most people would have no way to update their copy.

Zak 2y ago

As I understand it, the Intel 386 had it and would run Windows NT. Making Windows 95 (which required a 386 or better) a separate product was a business decision, not a technical one. Without doing a bunch of research, it looks like things were more split on the Mac side; some Mac models had fancy MMUs while others didn't until the switch to PowerPC. Classic Mac OS didn't support memory protection, and Apple's quest for a replacement operating system cumulating in the acquisition of NeXT is well known.

kbolino 2y ago
The 386 was technically enough to run NT, but the additional features of the operating system demanded additional resources, making it sluggish on the hardware most home users actually had. NT also couldn't use drivers written for DOS or Windows 3.x. Conversely, Windows 9x could have made more aggressive use of the processor's protected mode, but it would have broken a lot of programs that worked fine on Windows 3.x. Windows 9x was still capable of running most 16-bit real mode software and generally allowed it to access BIOS and hardware, which NT couldn't allow without breaking the security model. Many "enterprise" customers even stayed on 9x instead of NT simply because it ran the software they used. It took another few years before the hardware got fast enough and the software base moved to mostly 32-bit protected-mode code to merge the two product lines. However, there were still problems when it finally happened with XP.
- Zak 2y ago
  It was probably a good business decision. Microsoft is famous for commercial success despite the hacker crowd typically having unfavorable opinions about their products. The best example that comes to mind for me is Windows 95 having a special case in its memory management to work around a bug in SimCity. From a technical perspective, that's nuts, but from a business perspective I imagine not doing that would have hurt both immediate sales and consumer trust in the brand.
  - kbolino 2y ago
    I guess the line between "business" and "technical" reasons here is a little blurry. Keeping SimCity or any other widely used program working through "hacks" doesn't seem nearly as bonkers in the days before widespread high-speed Internet access. Even if Maxis did patch their game, most people would have no way to update their copy.