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

Windows 96

windows96.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 332 posts

Re: Windows 96

#201

Post by samtheprogram »

thomasz wrote: post #189
koyote wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped doing it around Windows 7 and have not really seen an issue. I have Windows 10 installations that date back to the original Windows 10 release (and have been updated with Windows Update all the way up to the current) and they are running perfectly fine. That being said, I feel like I install much less software than I used to. They used to hand out CDs with computer magazines that were basically dumps of ran…

Pretty sure it stopped being helpful with Windows 2000.

Reinstalling Windows XP SP 2 on my computer growing up was one of the first things that got interested in what was going on at the operating system level. I found Windows XP Inside Out around the house, read it over so many times, and eventually re-installed it on my computer for fun.

I was floored to realize how much faster things were. No wait time for a Windows Explorer window to open. Everything was snappy, even after reinstalling games and antivirus. It blew my mind.

I still think it helps, but with a much longer tail on the frequency required. Windows XP definitely grew slow over time though, whether that was due to installing programs, caches I could’ve cleared with CClearner, or more incremental updating. We leave a lot on the OS over time.

Re: Windows 96

#202

Post by jjuuaann »

rukshn wrote: post #195

In order to view files and folders on Windows it should be dir isn't it? So why is it showing files when you type ls and not dir, and why dir command is not found?

It's not real Windows 1996.

Re: Windows 96

#203

Post by progx »

Compare this old simple and easy to use Start-menu with the current overloaded version.

No scroll, no keyboard input, just klick open, move over to your app in less then 1 second and done.

Re: Windows 96

#205

Post by bouke »

nsriv wrote: post #96
userbinator wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mere presence of buttons that look like buttons, and static text that looks like static text, is innumerably better than the "ambiguous text and icons floating in a sea of flat white/blackspace" that UIs today seem to mostly consist of.

I feel this way about interactions on mobile. I grew up using Android and still have my phone on 3 buttons mode because it seems obvious. Have been using iDevices for work and some of the tap and swipe gestures are so unintuitive, along with the flat text as buttons. It feels like Apple decided "people that use our devices know this already."

There’s an accessibility option to display buttons with an outline. I have enabled that for some relatives as they are also confused by the (lack of) design. All hail flat design, sigh.

Re: Windows 96

#206

Post by midasuni »

thatwasunusual wrote: post #29

Pretty. :) Gives me PTSD-like flashbacks to the time when I was tasked with installing Windows 95 on 50+ computers on the local school. For the young(er), Windows was on 14-ish 3.5" floppy disks, and I had to do some heavy calculation and logistics copying those discs while installing the OS to make my effort as efficient as possible. IIRC, I managed to keep the installing cyclus going on 28 computers at a time, and…

And then office, which made windows 95 look like a cakewalk.

I remember installing offie 4.3 and windows 95 from floppies - I assume office 95 at some point too. Dozens of floppies.

Re: Windows 96

#207

Post by dmos62 »

pier25 wrote: post #5

These UIs definitely look outdated, but somehow they seem better than current Windows UIs. Not, sure if it's nostalgia or if there's something there.

I like my Windows 10 UI. I'd miss a lot of things if I were using an earlier Windows. That said, I prefer Linux UX, since I can (and do) make it what I want (and it turns out nothing like Win 10).

Re: Windows 96

#209

Post by mixmastamyk »

wruza wrote: post #129
Firehawke wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I would create a c:\wininst folder and dump the CD worth of files. When I needed to do an OS reinstall, I'd boot to DOS mode, cd \wininst, and do the install from hard drive to hard drive. Much MUCH faster and much MUCH less painful.

Protip: Windows 95 (and 98) installs much faster hdd-to-hdd if you start smartdrv.exe in your config.sys/autoexec.bat even with minimal write cache.

You could run smartdrv.exe later, I believe.

Re: Windows 96

#210

Post by stinos »

quaintdev wrote: post #51
feikname wrote: post #4

If you click activate windows it says its not a genuine copy, greys out and starts spitting out DLL errors haha, nice easter egg.

"Failed to load DLL". You have to click "Damn" to exit dialog box. I wish today's apps made interactions little more fun like this.

Please no. For me it's fun once, then it starts to get annoying and feels iditoic. I've grown to like my error messages as clear and unambiguous as possible (What is 'damn' going to do? Is it 'ok'? Is it 'cancel'? Is it 'reboot'?). Luckily that one is not a real application. 'guru meditation error' is though. Haha, such fun :]
Post reply on HN