11–20 of 23 posts
Good grief, what a ridiculous claim.
> Before August 1995, using a computer was an intimidating ordeal. You either knew how to handle black command lines or you were stuck with some pretty patched-up graphical interfaces.
Did the author just blank the entire Mac computer line-up from their memory? System 1 had a finder/menu/window management/etc. and came out all the way back in '84.
Windows 95 was definitely better for MS users, but it was really just patching a hole in a single company's product line. Macs were far more solid than Win 95/98/SE at the time, and things like Sun Sparc 5s were more solid than Macs. Before people were getting hit with security problems all the time, they used to go years without rebooting Unix servers. It was more like one company with a stranglehold on the market w…
Good grief, what a ridiculous claim.
Agreed. From the article: > Before August 1995, using a computer was an intimidating ordeal. You either knew how to handle black command lines or you were stuck with some pretty patched-up graphical interfaces. Did the author just blank the entire Mac computer line-up from their memory? System 1 had a finder/menu/window management/etc. and came out all the way back in '84.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. From the article: > Before August 1995, using a computer was an intimidating ordeal. You either knew how to handle black command lines or you were stuck with some pretty patched-up graphical interfaces. Did the author just blank the entire Mac computer line-up from their memory? System 1 had a finder/menu/window management/etc. and came out all the way back in '84.
At the time 90% of people had never even touched a Mac.
Anecdotal, but Macs weren’t as uncommon as you might think, since they were subsidized in scholastic environemtns. I remember using them as an elementary school kid.
Even the title of the article is absurd and ignores subsequent revolutions like Wi-fi, NT architecture, the page rank algorithm, cloud computing, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, and replete with inaccuracies. "Before it, using a computer was synonymous with staring at the black MS-DOS screen. Want to play a game? You had to type annoying commands like cd C:\games\doom and pray the system wouldn't throw a conventional memory error." Wrong, obviously, since Windows already existed. But then comes this odd statement: "Windows 3.1, which came before, was just a shell on top of DOS. It was a…
You can still go to that same folder though, you just need a Start Menu replacement like OpenShell to get a sane Start Menu appearance.
And now the file system is just an irritating mess. Why are there mirrors of your home-directory structure, most of them "forbidden," littering the left pane? I waste so much time every hour of every day hunting down my most-used directories. Yes, I pinned some shortcuts on my desktop, but that means herding windows out of the way to get to them.
Finder blows, but somehow I navigate better with it now than I can with Explorer.
Windows 95 was definitely better for MS users, but it was really just patching a hole in a single company's product line. Macs were far more solid than Win 95/98/SE at the time, and things like Sun Sparc 5s were more solid than Macs. Before people were getting hit with security problems all the time, they used to go years without rebooting Unix servers. It was more like one company with a stranglehold on the market w…
I remember watching TV with a friend during this and a Coke ad came on where this guy was shuffling from office to office asking for change for the Coke machine. I chuckled at it and he (a software engineer for like 20 years at that point) said "I don't get it, why was that funny? He was just looking for change." I replied: "That was Bill Gates."
Coke made a Bill Gates commercial for the release of Windows 95.
It was a great consumer product at the time but "last true revolution"?? Sorry, but you've missed a lot. ;)