How Microsoft's Windows 95 test nearly crashed an entire software store

antdude

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2816273/how-microsofts-windows-95-test-nearly-crashed-an-entire-software-store.html

takeahike

Though it was revolutionary in many ways, Windows 95 in my experience substantially lacked stability, so much so that I would not sell it with new systems and instead stuck with Windows 3.1, which while also lacking stability was more tolerable. PC Magazine columnist John Dvorak had written a column about it called In the Wake of Windows 95 about how many people had reverted back to 3.1 (cannot find a copy) that I even hung up in my store. I didn’t move on from 3.1 until 98–I did come to the conclusion later, however, that many of the problems I had may have had as much to do with hardware issues as with those of the OS. When Microsoft finally moved on from using a hybrid of 16-bit DOS and Windows code in 95/98/Me to the pure 32-bit NT/2000/XP line of OSes the crashing problems were vastly improved but IMO probably not almost entirely until 11, where I now get a crash less often than a solar eclipse.

Sparkchaser

I’ve used every MS version from DOS to Win 11.

I think 95 was the worst. I suffered through it, though. 😉

ugly95

Sparkchaser I think 95 was the worst. I suffered through it, though. 😉

That would make sense.

But, also for me, it would have been the time when I knew the least about what I was doing and probably would have been the most likely to install a bunch of random drivers and unintentionally break things in order to try and get games working. Or maybe that would have been Windows 98, since that would more likely be when I had internet access to open up a wide world of OS-breaking opportunities to download.

wdunwoody

Sparkchaser - …but wasn’t there 95, 95a and 95b? 95b was much more stable.

takeahike

Sparkchaser I think 95 was the worst.

Windows Me was the worst, most likely caused by it being a half-assed interim patch job released as a holdover in anticipation of XP. You’d get something like this on the order of once per minute.

takeahike

wdunwoody but wasn’t there 95, 95a and 95b? 95b was much more stable.

95a was 95 with SP1. 95b was a separate release that you could not upgrade to from 95 or 95a but was available only as an OEM release bundled only with a new system. Unlike 95 and 95a it had a different splash screen that included a reference to Microsoft Internet Explorer. See: What is the difference between Win95, Win95a, and Win95b?

Windows 95b splash screen

Andyross

There was also a 95c. Again, only OEM, but had basic USB support (I think mainly just keyboard/mouse.)

GrumpyCanadian

takeahike Windows Me![](https://en.wikipedia.org/static/favicon/wikipedia.ico) en.wikipedia.orgWindows Me - Wikipedia![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/WindowsME.png) was the worst, most likely caused by it being a half-assed interim patch job released as a holdover in anticipation of XP.

Windows Me was actually available slightly ahead of Windows 2000 (a.k.a. Windows NT 5.0), if I remember correctly, but yes, it was a rather nasty, kludgy thing that didn’t run so well. However, I don’t remember it being as bad as you described.

Windows XP wasn’t officially available until late 2001. In its early releases, it wasn’t exactly great, either. The first time I tested it, I was able to cause it to crash rather spectacularly multiple times within the first five minutes of completing the installation. Fortunately, it improved substantially with subsequent updates.

It seems I had that backwards. According to Wikipedia, Windows 2000 was released before Me. I remember trying Me first, but maybe that was just what I could get my hands on inexpensively.

codezer0

95 definitely needed the extensive testing. It was by and large a huge departure towards making computers more accessible and usable in general.

If IBM was allowed to lock down the PC standard for itself, the only avenue of gaming it would be able to do would be ranked, competitive spreadsheets. Let’s be real, display resolutions would still be talked about in how many characters per line and rows per display it could do.

Still, 95 and Me did a lot of things broken, that’s for sure. The plug and play model was fundamentally broken in 95; and the attempts to break away from DOS while manufacturers practically depended on it for device drivers betrayed Windows Me hardcore. Just as nobody was willing to make x64 drivers for XP x64, but were forced to when Vista rolled out for end users.

There’s rumors that Windows 12 may release as early as next year (!). Historical trends would say, it should be the next good Windows release. However, with all the veering towards ads and using chatgpt to code it? I’m not so sure anymore.