Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)
Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well before
its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it was a
step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the original
Windows 95... Ben Myers
On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:03:33 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)"
<cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 May 2005 12:37:09 GMT, (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>>Good point. I have encountered very few situations where the Windows 98 drivers
>>will not work. In fact, I consider Windows 95A (the original. Ugh!), Windows
>>95, Windows 95C, and Windows 98 First Edition to be beta-testing releases of
>>Windows 98 Second Edition, when Microsoft got the DOS-kerneled Windows just
>>about right... Ben Myers
>
>Two points:
>1) Win95A = Win95 SP1, not the original Win95
>2) None of Win9x GUI run on a DOS kernel, though they boot from one
>
>The usual judgement is that Win98 SE was the definitive fulfillment of
>the original Windows 95 brief, but it should be noted that between
>Win95 original and Win98 SE, several changes were made that eroded
>part of that design brief, where backwards compatibility was
>concerned. These were not much lamented, as the need for backwards
>compatibility faded over the years.
>
>My take is that *all* of the Win9x series were worthwhile OSs,
>especially when compared to Win3.yuk, and if anything should have
>stayed in beta a bit longer, it was WinME.
>
>In terms of bugginess (as a criterion for "should have stayed in
>beta"), the original Win95 and Win98 SE aren't that far apart. By the
>time Win98 SE rolled around, the feature set had been much improved,
>but with this came new bugs, and exploitable ones at that... e.g.
>
>http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/mimehole.htm
>
>...though king of direct exploitability still has to go to NT < XP
>SP2. There's no equivalent to RPC and LSASS exploits in any Win9x,
>i.e. where simply connecting to the Internet and doing nothing at all
>is enough to get you hit (once you avoid F&PS on Internet, that is).
>
>
>
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well before
its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it was a
step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the original
Windows 95... Ben Myers
On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:03:33 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)"
<cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 May 2005 12:37:09 GMT, (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>>Good point. I have encountered very few situations where the Windows 98 drivers
>>will not work. In fact, I consider Windows 95A (the original. Ugh!), Windows
>>95, Windows 95C, and Windows 98 First Edition to be beta-testing releases of
>>Windows 98 Second Edition, when Microsoft got the DOS-kerneled Windows just
>>about right... Ben Myers
>
>Two points:
>1) Win95A = Win95 SP1, not the original Win95
>2) None of Win9x GUI run on a DOS kernel, though they boot from one
>
>The usual judgement is that Win98 SE was the definitive fulfillment of
>the original Windows 95 brief, but it should be noted that between
>Win95 original and Win98 SE, several changes were made that eroded
>part of that design brief, where backwards compatibility was
>concerned. These were not much lamented, as the need for backwards
>compatibility faded over the years.
>
>My take is that *all* of the Win9x series were worthwhile OSs,
>especially when compared to Win3.yuk, and if anything should have
>stayed in beta a bit longer, it was WinME.
>
>In terms of bugginess (as a criterion for "should have stayed in
>beta"), the original Win95 and Win98 SE aren't that far apart. By the
>time Win98 SE rolled around, the feature set had been much improved,
>but with this came new bugs, and exploitable ones at that... e.g.
>
>http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/mimehole.htm
>
>...though king of direct exploitability still has to go to NT < XP
>SP2. There's no equivalent to RPC and LSASS exploits in any Win9x,
>i.e. where simply connecting to the Internet and doing nothing at all
>is enough to get you hit (once you avoid F&PS on Internet, that is).
>
>
>
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram