Talk:Windows 95

From iA wiki

> Nowadays, Windows XP is the best choice for both home and business users.

I'd dispute that on the basis that Windows 2000 is a much more mature operating system, having had much more time to implement security fixes, having a lower hardware speed requirement, and some tests showing Window 2000 is faster. I've also noticed the XP user interface slows down from time to time and the explorer window crashes a little more often than 2000.

However, in its favor, XP's simple and integrated CD burning tools are great. While I'm an exception, most people seem to prefer the new look and feel. -- Webfork

I disagree, Webfork. XP was designed with the home user in mind and features a much better (though still patchy) DOS-emulation mode, as well as a multitude of multimedia features, and of course the Luna skin that most users really like - even business users. We have Red Hat, SCO, XP, NT and 95 at work, and aside from the zealots who refuse to use MS, XP is definitely the pride of the office :-) -- Amw

I don't really know what the multimedia features are. It has a movie editor that no one I know has ever used (and I'm a part-time movie maker) and the sound editor on XP looks almost exactly like Windows 3.11's included sound editor. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know what you mean. Clairify?

This is all I could find spending a short time googling:

1. Enhanced support for digital media (movies, pictures, music)
2. DirectX 8.1 multimedia libraries for gaming

Is that what you mean? That doesn't sound like a multitude.

Windows XP supports DirectX 9.0, Windows Media Player 9, new Digital Rights Management features, Movie Maker, skinning/theming, better integration between media-rich documents (graphics files, sounds files etc) and the Explorer shell... It's the kinds of things you notice once you've used both fairly extensively - things just work smoother and easier under Windows XP.

I have a few problems with that response:

1. Digital Rights Management isn't a feature that's a restriction on a feature.
2. Windows Media Player 9 is out for Win98SE/ME/2000 as well

You are correct that MP3s and graphics are viewed better in explorer. But that still doesn't make it a compelling reason to upgrade to XP. A music studio friend of mine says he has no intentions of upgrading to XP from 2000 because there are no compelling reasons, and he does some video work as well.

Webfork

I think we should agree to disgree on this :-) However, i would like to talk about DRM. It is not inherently a bad thing. DRM is perhaps the one thing that will save file sharing networks from being destroyed by the RIAA. The record companies are certainly savvy enough to realize that file sharing would be an excellent advertizing medium, similar to radio. If a secure DRM format could be developed (and Microsoft is trying very hard), it would allow record companies to distribute time-limited songs, the same way that companies like JASC (Paintshop Pro) distribute time-limited software. Certainly some people would still pirate the songs, but if it was a convoluted enough procedure, most people would end up using the file sharing networks like the radio - download a song, share with friends, listen for a week or two, then the song self-destructs and you buy it.

DRM is also useful for companies and people who are interested in privacy. Being able to sign documents so that only certain people can read them and after X days it would self destruct is a feature that people will find many uses for. Don't write trusted computing and DRM off as "restrictions". Enabling restrictions to the information access doesn't give you less freedom, it gives you MORE, because you get to present your information it whatever manner you see fit. -- Amw

---

The opinion on this topic really has to go. It's too subjective. 95 has been depreciated, yes. 95 no longer has Microsoft support, yes. However it still works and runs a great deal of software. XP most definitely does not replace it. Run XP on a p100 and get back to me. Next year. <code> =p </code> 95 has, however, been obsoleted by 98 under almost every circumstance save for a low-end computer. XP does not, in many people's minds, replace 95 (98). Perhaps an article could be written discussing an upgrade from windows 98 to XP. Even I find myself appreciating the value of looking at such an argument, even if I disagree. XP is a lot of bloat for me. Well, 98 is a lot of bloat for me. Umm.. actually, DOS was a lot of bloat for me.. hrm. -- rack

I don't really think i've injected too much opinion here. There is honestly no reason for anyone today to install 95 on a computer. Yes, on an old computer - sure, but noone realistically expects to install XP on an old computer anyway. As far as businesses go, it would be very unwise to upgrade workstations without upgrading the OS just to save a few bucks, because it leaves the business with no support, no service packs, no up-to-date device drivers, etc etc.

The bottom line is unless you are running an old PC or specifically need a feature from the 95 line (i.e. MS-DOS) it's not wise to hang behind.

And if the under-1-meg of MS-DOS was bloated for you, what on Earth wasn't? 32k Locomotive BASIC? :-) -- Amw