Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How did Windows 95 get permission to put Weezer video 'Buddy Holly' on the CD?

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 172 posts

Re: How did Windows 95 get permission to put Weezer video 'Buddy Holly' on the CD?

#151

Post by taysco »

magic_hamster wrote: post #138
taysco wrote: post #85

Microsoft went crazy with Windows 95 marketing and release. They also spent 3m (reported between 8m-15m at the time though -- which was massive for its day) on licensing Stones' Start Me Up.And they actually sent some shitty live version which would have avoided paying their old bassist. Jerks. The hype was real though. I can still remember installing the floppy version on one of my first PCs. The first start up was…

> experiencing those new technologies was unmatched I think about this a lot and it feels like there's still massive advancements. Obviously AI is up there, but also smartphones, star link, autonomous (presumably) driving, noise canceling headphones, robotics. I agree the 90s were way more exciting. The tech was moving fast but also the vibe was much more positive and optimistic. Today we might have massive breakthro…

You could be right, I am much older and much more jaded than I was in those bright-eyed years. I could just simply have different perspective now.

Although, you made me think of the last time I felt that feeling was the first iPhone release. Going from our Nokia's with snake to the iPhone was also quite the experience. I remember my uncle getting one very, very early, maybe even pre-release and we went out for a big family dinner and there was like 15 of us just crowded around my uncle watching him use random apps. No one had ever seen anything like that before.

The problem/challenge w/ LLM's is we've been building interactive chat bots since the IRC days, probably earlier so the interface doesn't feel new. And no one really understand what's going on behind the scenes other than "it does stuff" and "sometimes it get's it right and sometimes... not so much". It's a weird technology lol

Re: How did Windows 95 get permission to put Weezer video 'Buddy Holly' on the CD?

#152

Post by dxdm »

randall wrote: post #113
taysco wrote: post #85

Microsoft went crazy with Windows 95 marketing and release. They also spent 3m (reported between 8m-15m at the time though -- which was massive for its day) on licensing Stones' Start Me Up.And they actually sent some shitty live version which would have avoided paying their old bassist. Jerks. The hype was real though. I can still remember installing the floppy version on one of my first PCs. The first start up was…

The last 3 years of LLM progress, to me, feel like 1994-1998.

To me, the current AI boom is more like when McDonald's became available in my neck of the woods after '89. Amazing at first, but then you realize it's mostly sloppy grease that has its uses.

The wild technology race of the 90s, on the other hand, felt like a magical new dimension opening up. Maybe just because it took much longer to get thoroughly turned into a vector for BS.

Re: How did Windows 95 get permission to put Weezer video 'Buddy Holly' on the CD?

#155

Post by dudefeliciano »

snthpy wrote: post #121
WorkerBee28474 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they actually sent some shitty live version which would have avoided paying their old bassist. Their old bassist did not make for good PR... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Smith

> The story took another surprising turn in 1993, when Wyman's 30-year-old son from his first marriage, Stephen, married Smith's mother, Patsy, then aged 46, making Smith her own step-grandfather’s ex-wife.

that's a stroke inducing sentence right there

Re: How did Windows 95 get permission to put Weezer video 'Buddy Holly' on the CD?

#156

Post by llm_nerd »

kej wrote: post #40
llm_nerd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... It's a shirtless man hugging the waist of another shirtless man. The cover art doesn't even have any text on it, but instead is just a picture of a couple of shirtless dudes in an incredibly weird pose. Yeah, I'm sure lots of fathers find themselves in scenes just like this. Totes normal. "Not every picture of two men is sexual." Yes, no shit. Of course on HN someone would try this morally righteous horseshit, es…

I wasn't told how to interpret it, I saw an unusual picture and, where you apparently jumped the conclusion that it was two men that were obviously about to have sex and that it would be a scandalous statement on your own sexuality if anyone were to see you with that picture, I chose to look up what the explanation was. I can only imagine how much you must clutch your pearls when naval aviators play volleyball togeth…

"I wasn't told how to interpret it"

Then you detail how you had to look up how to interpret this. Amazing stuff. Like, do you realize you just destroyed your own nonsense? Doing the "Duh, obviously" bit and then saying "this picture was so weird I had to be told what it meant" is quite the self-own.

"where you apparently jumped the conclusion that it was two men that were obviously about to have sex "

Save this boorish troll Reddit righteous-brigading garbage from HN. How isn't your garbage post far in the negatives?

Yes, you're so enlightened and better than thou. Howler.

It's an extremely odd picture to be on one's homescreen. Some people have their dog, some their wife, and then Bob here, he has two strange shirtless men in an extremely odd pose. Not even any normal album cover text to make it clear it's an album cover. Just a picture of two shirtless men.

"naval aviators"

Again, Reddit look-at-the-crowd bullshit.

Re: How did Windows 95 get permission to put Weezer video 'Buddy Holly' on the CD?

#158

Post by stuaxo »

ssl-3 wrote: post #3
RegnisGnaw wrote: post #2

Licensing?

I read the whole thing (all several paragraphs of it) and the answer is, indeed: Licensing. It's approximately the least-interesting article I've read this year.

People like different things, most of the things on the internet are mildly interesting at best, I found it more interesting than a lot things I read.

Re: How did Windows 95 get permission to put Weezer video 'Buddy Holly' on the CD?

#159

Post by lproven »

wolvoleo wrote: post #139
taysco wrote: post #85

Microsoft went crazy with Windows 95 marketing and release. They also spent 3m (reported between 8m-15m at the time though -- which was massive for its day) on licensing Stones' Start Me Up.And they actually sent some shitty live version which would have avoided paying their old bassist. Jerks. The hype was real though. I can still remember installing the floppy version on one of my first PCs. The first start up was…

It was pretty groundbreaking tbh. Many of the UI paradigms are still used today. Windows 95 introduced the start menu and the task bar, windows 3.11 didn't have them in that form. The start menu was just an applications folder (a bit like on Mac) and the task bar was some shortcuts on what was basically the desktop. I don't think windows 3 had a registry either. It really became what we still know as windows today. O…

> Many of the UI paradigms are still used today.

True.

> Windows 95 introduced the start menu and the task bar,

True.

> windows 3.11 didn't have them in that form.

It didn't have them in _any_ form. It had the Program Manager and the File Manager, inherited from OS/2 1.1.

> The start menu was just an applications folder

No, it wasn't.

> (a bit like on Mac)

Again no. Not at all.

The Start menu is a hierarchical browser showing a tree constructed on-the-fly from the storage on disk. That storage is just a folder, yes, but it's a folder containing shortcuts and folders. It does not contain anything else: no binaries, no programs, no config. Just directories full of shortcuts.

(For hardcore Unix folks: "shortcuts" are Windows >= 95's version of symlinks, with more and richer metadata, but they are filer-GUI-level only and are not understood by the shell, because the shell predates them by a decade or more.)

> and the task bar was some shortcuts on what was basically the desktop.

Nope, not at all. It's a rich UI in its own right with half a dozen separate interacting components: in Win95, it contained the start menu, then a window switcher, then a notification area containing sub-controls (as separate applets) and the clock.

It is more complex and sophisticated than the only 2 limited bits of prior art: the icon bar in Acorn's RISC OS, and the Dock in NeXTstep, which was influenced by RISC OS.

> I don't think windows 3 had a registry either.

It did, but all it stored were file associations: the 3 letter extensions on the end of filenames, and what app opened what file extension.

> It really became what we still know as windows today.

True.

Re: How did Windows 95 get permission to put Weezer video 'Buddy Holly' on the CD?

#160

Post by lproven »

tosti wrote: post #123
taysco wrote: post #85

Microsoft went crazy with Windows 95 marketing and release. They also spent 3m (reported between 8m-15m at the time though -- which was massive for its day) on licensing Stones' Start Me Up.And they actually sent some shitty live version which would have avoided paying their old bassist. Jerks. The hype was real though. I can still remember installing the floppy version on one of my first PCs. The first start up was…

This is from and old post on a news group a long time ago and I can't find it anymore, so here's citing from my murky brain: Q: Did Microsoft really pay Mick Jagger $3M to license "Start Me Up" by the Rolling Stones during the Windows 95 product launch event? A: No. They paid $3M to license only a part of the song. They omitted the lines "You made a grown man cry" and "You made a dead man cum"

Good heavens. That I didn't notice.
Post reply on HN