11–20 of 51 posts
I always thought that GIF was of NT 4, not Win95, because the Logon box has a Domain field. Question mark ?
In this example it's definitely Windows 95, because "Setup MSN" is on the desktop at the end. This was never bundled with NT.
Sometimes the Run box and the Command Prompt were locked down too, to get around that you could navigate to C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 in Explorer and run FTP.EXE, then use the "!" command to run whatever other commands you needed.
If Microsoft Office was installed, another easy way to run whatever you wanted despite lockdown settings was to open Excel or Word and go to the VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) window with Alt+F11, and use the Shell() function from the Immediate pane.
If you just unplugged the ethernet cable at the right time, you would login straight away and even with a higher permission account compared to a normal login.
Nobody really cared about computer security back then.
The "login" dialog on Windows 95 was just providing network credentials. Windows 95 is a single-user OS. There is no actual login or security.
But there was an optional registry key that prevents the user from doing anything until after you were logged into the network. So practically, it was a login dialog.
But still no security.
The rant about qemu/kvm at the bottom is weird. Has the author never heard of virt-manager or gnome-boxes?
# create disk image
qemu-img create -f qcow2 win95.img 10G
# install win95 from iso
qemu-system-x86_64 -m 256 -hda win95.img -cdrom windows95.iso -boot d
# boot the disk
qemu-system-x86_64 -m 256 -hda win95.img> * I prefer to use VirtualBox because I am unable to make QEMU/KVM work, since I am not a rocket scientist. I don't see the advantage of a package manager when I have to edit random config files and hunt for tutorials. Why this can't be managed by APT or explained by the developer/maintainer? Seriously, why this needs to be another Wine-like experience is beyond me.
Not sure what this means to be honest: "I don't see the advantage of a package manager when I have to edit random config files and hunt for tutorials. Why this can't be managed by APT or explained by the developer/maintainer?" Nor this: "Seriously, why this needs to be another Wine-like experience is beyond me."
Of course, Virtualbox is substantially fine for this sort of thing, but Qemu/KVM isn't that absurd. Qemu is just an ordinary CLI program. Admittedly, forging a proper Qemu command for running a VM is an exercise in frustration because the CLI arguments have changed over time and some of them are now quite complicated to set up, but this is more FFMPEG-like than Wine-like.
That said, if you want to use Qemu/KVM more like a desktop virtualization solution, try libvirt with virt-manager. That will give you a GUI with wizards. It's a little weird, but very powerful.
Virtualbox may still be better for Windows 95. Honestly, 86Box may be best for Windows 95, being an emulator of older hardware rather than a VM.
The rant about qemu/kvm at the bottom is weird. Has the author never heard of virt-manager or gnome-boxes?
I know when I took a break from VMs for awhile and came back, I found virt-manager about 3 days after I started trying to crack the nut of qemu/kvm from only the command line.
The rant about qemu/kvm at the bottom is weird. Has the author never heard of virt-manager or gnome-boxes?
# create disk image qemu-img create -f qcow2 win95.img 10G # install win95 from iso qemu-system-x86_64 -m 256 -hda win95.img -cdrom windows95.iso -boot d # boot the disk qemu-system-x86_64 -m 256 -hda win95.img