Please respond i would really like to know your opinion!!

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Homework?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

The newer Operating System has a capital "W" in "Windows" and more numbers in its 
name. Actually 95 is an abbreviation for 1995, so that makes 2000 approximately 0.25% 
more.

Both are divisible by 5, but only 1995 is also divisible by 3, which makes it much 
luckier than 2000.

Good luck with your studies ：－）

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

95 is shell built on top of DOS, one of the first PC operating systems for home computers.

2000 is built upon NT, which was a commercial-grade operating system, independent 
of DOS.

95 has some plug-n-play capabilites and user friendliness, although maybe less than 
98 or XP.

2000, like NT, was not really intended for the general public.  Be prepared to learn 
more about the guts of the PC and operating system, if you plan on installing 2000.

In terms of a computer for home use in year 2008, I would not recommned either 95 
or 2000 (nor NT nor ME).  If the hardware is relatively new, think about XP.  If 
the hardware is older, think about 98SE.

But, do your homework.  Some hardware and programs now require a minimum of XP.  
As time goes on, support for 98 will fade faster than support for XP.  Of course, 
support for 95 is already vanishing fast.








On Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 1:47 pm, Aaron Wood wrote:

>Please respond i would really like to know your opinion!! 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

95 is shell built on top of DOS

That's Windows 3.x. Windows 95 is basically a marriage of DOS and the Windows system.

95 has some plug-n-play capabilites and user friendliness, although maybe less than 98 or XP.

Each version of Windows after Win95 got less and less user-friendly, though the plug&play capabilities did get better.

In terms of a computer for home use in year 2008, I would not recommned either 95 or 2000 (nor NT nor ME).

It all depends on what you want to do and as a consequence which programs you need/want to use. I'm still fine with my Win95 box for most tasks.

By the way, 2000 is XP minus ClearType, minus Fisher Price theme and weaker HyperThreading support. It isn't that much different.

If the hardware is older, think about 98SE.

Win98SE has integrated IE, and is more annoying to use.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

What you are saying is full of garbage. You need to do your research. Windows 95 less user friendly than XP or 98? Are you crazy? Anything above Windows 95 uses 95's look and feel as groundwork. IE, the start menu, desktop etc. Windows 95 started all of that (not to mention the recycle bin and countless of other features). User-friendly is a computer that works for you, not you working for it. With your newer Windows versions, people are too busy protecting themselves from any security brake, or any software glitch they have no time to do anything else. People have to worry about too much with the newer Windows versions. Also, DO NOT recommend anyone using Windows 98 over 95. Windows 98 is bloated with useless junk like Internet explorer (which is out of date now), and annoying web integration crap. XP (as stated before) looks like a toy for kids and can't be taken seriously. I can't believe you would have people go to 98 but not 2000, are you insane? Also- Windows 95 is more secure than other Windows versions because viruses do not effect it in any way. If you even get a virus on Win95 it won't even be able to execute because of the procedures that viruses call for do not exist in the Windows 95 operating system. In a nutshell.....95 is gold.....98 is crap...end of story. And----Windows 95 is still supported by a lot of software today. Such as new web browsers of Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Opera. Not to mention, much of the software that requires Win98(SE) will also work on Windows 95. They just don't list it because they haven't tested it on Win95 systems since they don't have to anymore.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

What a pity that you cannot express yourself without resorting to rudeness.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Eric wasn't being rude. He was right.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I didn't say he was wrong, I was commenting on his style :-)

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum